IAG defers E-ZPass recompete deadline again - rumors swirl

The Gore on the minds of many in the toll industry these days is Lynn, not Al. Lynn Gore keeps sending out mysterious Addendums to 07-IAG-2782 that are the source of great speculation and rumor about "what's going on" with the huge E-ZPass transponder system recompete. 07-IAG-2782 is formally termed "Furnish and provide Electronic Toll Collection Technology and Associated Subsystem Components and Services for the Operation of the E-ZPass System."

Speculation and rumor we've picked up include

- the collapse of the US dollar relative to the Canadian has messed up Mark IV's prices

- the IAG is desperately trying to get some competition to Mark IV because no one else looks like putting in a credible bid

- there's a big split in the IAG over whether they should allow exceptions for those who want to deploy a sticker tag

- a fight over whether the patron feedback should be mandated or optional (see previous speculation)

- modification of the all-wired-everywhere requirement given camera tolling as backup

- what transponder would Obama drive is the divisive issue at the IAG, and would a McCain be able to follow the feedback

- will TransCore sue? (Of course)

Last two are more in the nature of jokes than rumors.

Deferrals

There's been a procession of deferrals announced in Addendums issued by the redoubtable Lynn Gore, IAG Technology Procurement Coordinator. We called her, thinking that Lynn was a lovely lady. Wrong again! The voicemail message is clearly of a male Lynn Gore.

Mr Lynn Gore is an employee of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority at 2 Broadway, New York, the toller that is acting on behalf of the Inter Agency Group in the E-ZPass procurement.

Left message anyway. No call back there.

Unable to talk to a charming Ms Gore, we called James Crawford executive director of the inter Agency Group. He said: "I really can't comment except to say that the time taken to properly reply to the inquiries has taken longer than we expected."

On March 20 when the RFP was issued the deadline for Proposals was July 18. On June 19 four weeks before that date the RFP deadline was pushed back ten weeks to October 1. Just this week, Sept 17, the RFP date was pushed back another month to Oct 31.

Meanwhile Gore has been busy composing addendums to extend the deadlines of the Requests for Modifications or Clarifications and Exceptions (RFMCE) to the terms of the contract as spelled out in the RFP of March 20.

The deadline for the RFMCE has been amended from May 14, to May 21, to June 2, to Aug 25, to Sept 5. Four deferrals.

Deadline for the IAG to respond to the RFMCEs is Sept 26 when there should be a response to an unknown number of questions and suggestions about the terms of the RFP. That would give responders five weeks to the present Oct 31 deadline for the RFP.

(see table nearby)

Just this moment got call back from Lynn Gore.

He says they had to be flexible about dates because they didn't know how many issues would be raised during the period for raising questions and suggesting modifications and exceptions. He says there are a fairly large number and some substantive issues. Time had to be given to properly consider them and to gain sufficient authority concurrence in the response.

"We want true competition," he says. They are now on track he says.

Gore characterizes the process as three timelines (1) the RFMCE (2) the IAG response to the RFMCE (3) the RFP responses.

The final deadline for RFMCE has now passed (Sept 5) an two others remain.

Issues in RFMCE

The RFMCE issues raise range from the mundane to the momentous. Back in May they answered ten issues/questions, and they make good reading.

At the mundane end is a question like: Would IAG provide an Excel or Word version of the tables? (The answer was No - they're Adobe guys at TBTA, not Microsofties.) (Q5)

Another question was positively Clintonesque in parsing whether the IAG didn't mean "shall" when they wrote "should", to which the response was that when they wrote should they meant should. (Q6)

But elsewhere they agreed with the questioner that they meant shall rather than must. (Q7)

Data specifications were amended for a number of data formatting issues including cyclic redundancy checksum calculations, which we guess is somewhere between the mundane and the momentous. Checksums we think are to do with making sure all the items in a batch of data got received, but modifier "cyclic redundancy"?

Momentous is the issue of whether the IAG allows exceptions to the requirement for transponder feedback. TransCore's whole proposal for E-ZPass was built around sticker tags which by their form factor and reliance for power on the incoming signal strength can hardly provide any feedback - the little light and sound show to tell you were successfuly tolled, or are in trouble.

SunPass in Florida now operates with both a hardcased battery powered transponder with feedback alongside the sticker tag called SunPass Mini, but so far the IAG RFP requires just the single transponder with feedback. No new non-feedback radios.

Next Friday 26th we should get the answers, and all rumors should be quashed - or confirmed.

TOLLROADSnews 2008-09-19