24 Tips for Writing an RFP for an
AVL/GPS System

While automatic vehicle location (AVL) and GPS systems for pupil transportation purposes remains an emerging market, it appears to be making huge inroads with new bids and projects appearing regularly.

No one knows exactly how many school buses are equipped with AVL/GPS. Vendors, who track and compete in this arena estimate up to 12,500 school buses — give or take 1,000 — are presently equipped with a system. They report up to two dozen RFPs for AVL/GPS systems have been let by school districts nationwide, ranging from the installed 1,400 school bus AVL system in Dallas County Schools in Texas to the 127 school bus AVL system in Colorado Springs, Colo. Moreover, an estimated 100 districts are actively working on developing RFPs for this leading-edge technology, and according to a vendor, “a couple hundred have expressed interest.”

One of the latest bids comes from British Columbia (see page 20), where the Ministry of Education has issued a request for information (RFI) for a province-wide “common transportation information system” to cover 60 school districts and 1,700 school buses. While not specifically labeled a GPS system, the British Columbia proposal clearly demonstrates the increasing complexity of this technology.

Among its many provisions, the British Columbia bid requires compliance with the BC Enterprise Student Information Systems (BCeSIS), which currently provides student demographic, mapping, geo-location and capital asset data for more than 450,000 students throughout the province. In addition, according to the RFI, the winning system “must have a facility for data exchange” through the technical and security architectures of CAMS (a province-wide capital asset management system), CTIS (a province-wide geospatial and GIS topographic mapping service), and PLNet (a province-wide high-speed intranet). It “would (also) be desirable” if the solution would be compliant with the school interoperability framework,” a protocol that permits the sharing of administrative data across various software platforms. Indeed, this bid never explicitly even mentions GPS, though it would be impossible to accomplish the student tracking it requires without an AVL/GPS component. See what we mean by complexity!

If these bids sound extraordinarily complicated to you, rest assured they are. Clearly, procuring an AVL/GPS system is more abstract than the typical bus procurement. Bear in mind that school bus procurement has been underway for more than a century and is a well understood process while AVL/GPS is an emerging market!

In an effort to aid districts that have expressed interest, either mild or on the front burner because a school board member or the public may be demanding action, the editors of School Transportation News contacted several vendors and school districts to identify important elements of an AVL/GPS specification. Enough of these bids have been written and implemented that a base of knowledge about dos and don’ts akin to best practice has emerged. In fact, an excellent place to begin is to obtain and review copies of successful AVL/GPS specifications from other school districts.

What follows is by no means comprehensive, but it is intended as a starting point. These 24 recommendations are not presented in any order of importance.

1) Districts should clearly understand and describe what they need from an AVL/GPS system before issuing an RFP, otherwise they may get something they did not plan on. While the approach of how to deliver end user needs should not be specific, the RFP’s project scope should clearly spell out the district’s objectives.

2) Write a generic RFP. If a district wants the broadest range of potential technology solutions, it should not be specific about the desired technology but instead provide detailed list of its needs. The more specific the RFP the fewer the applicants.

3) To ensure the maximum number of vendors, submit proposals offering potentially different solutions that do not include anything even remotely specific to any particular vendor’s proprietary technology. In other words, do not tailor your RFP to one vendor as that will likely stifle innovation. If unsure exactly what the district wants in a certain area, write the RFP to allow for a trial by more than one vendor.

4) Specify whether the district wants the system to integrate with its existing routing/scheduling program and existing or desired functionality such as student identification, capital asset programs, etc. Stand-alone systems may have limitations such as only showing where buses are or where they have been without any connection to where they should be.

5) There are four basic components to an AVL/GPS system: hardware, communications, software and support. Address all four of these components in the spec.

6) Clearly specify that the district owns the data. This is particularly important if the data is to be stored remotely.

7) Specify the events — ignition on/off, door open/closed, four-way/eight-way flashers, panic button, etc. — that need to be monitored.

8) Include definitions of the abbreviations, acronyms and data terms that appear in the RFP.

9) Include the term “or equivalent” to ensure vendors that wish to propose an alternative potentially as good or better than that proposed in the RFP are not locked out.

10) Clarify whether the district needs an AVL/GPS system that offers real-time or passive data transmission. Data downloads at the end of day may suffice, but real-time data may be more important.
11) Do not specify the data transmission method. Leave it up to the vendor to propose whether the information is to be sent via satellite, nationwide cellular network or radio frequency — or a combination thereof. But clearly specify if your district does not want recurring or monthly costs.

12) Clarify the district’s field trip policy. Few or no out-of-district field trips might suggest data exchange via radio transmission within a 50 to 60 mile radius. Numerous out-of-district field trips might lead to wireless transmission.

13) Clarify whether the district wants the ability to import real-world GPS data into the routing/scheduling database. This capability allows real-world routing of buses based on actual GPS data rather than routing buses based on a model of the real-world.

14) The key to an efficient AVL/GPS system lies in integration, so give added weight to vendors that have experience with integrated AVL/GPS systems. Vendors that only provide related technologies such as routing software, cameras, two-way radios, phones, etc., know those subjects well, but they may not have the know-how of integrators who specialize in AVL/GPS technology.

15) Avoid publishing a vague “wish list.” The RFP responses may come back way beyond what the district is prepared to spend. Moreover, vendors may feel compelled to propose elaborate or potentially undeveloped technologies. However, it is possible to request functionality as “add-ons” beyond your core requirements. The recent British Columbia bid, for instance, addressed this issue in the five core business areas of transportation services it identified by itemizing “mandatory” functions and “desirable” functions.

16) Clarify the district’s warranty requirements.

17) Require the AVL/GPS solution to be capable of evolving with new technologies and meeting future needs as they arise. For instance, how does student tracking options, radio frequency identification devices, barcode or other technologies fit in?

18) Specify that the successful vendor must obtain and pay for all necessary licenses, permits and related documents.

19) Avoid exacting number of hardware or software functionality such as “input voltage 7.25VDC to 15.8VDC,” “seven inputs and two outputs,” ”GPS positional accuracy should be 5 meters or less 50 percent of the time and 10 meters or less 90 percent of the time,” “power cord that is 6.5m long,” etc., etc.

20) Avoid draconian requirements on vendors to produce data statements that potentially contain confidential information.

21) Avoid statements such as “system must have been running for X years” or “provide at least five reference customers operating their proposed system in school buses,” or, for larger districts, “proven in a district of similar size,” as these requirements tend to preclude newer technologies from being proposed.

22) Carefully consider the vendor’s past performance with other school systems. What is the vendor’s history of delivering this particular product and service? This will be a long-term investment and relationship and the district needs to realize it may be working with the vendor for many years to come.

23) Require identification of all costs associated with using, maintaining and expanding the system.

24) Do not base the final purchase decision on price, low bid or a single feature.

Source: School Transportation News, October 2006. All rights reserved.