MINUTES AND NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY...to Vineyard Haven to resume its published schedule on the Martha’s Vineyard route, but due to weather conditions the vessel remained on

MINUTES

OF THE

WOODS HOLE, MARTHA'S VINEYARD

AND NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY

The Meeting in Public Session

April 23, 2018

MINUTES

OF THE

WOODS HOLE, MARTHA’S VINEYARD AND NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY


April 23, 2018

The Members of the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority met this 23rd day of April, 2018, beginning at 10:00 a.m., in the Katharine Cornell Theatre of the Tisbury Town Hall, located at 51 Spring Street, Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts. All five Members were present: Chairman Robert F. Ranney of Nantucket; Vice Chairman Robert R. Jones of Barnstable; Secretary Marc N. Hanover of Dukes County; Elizabeth H. Gladfelter of Falmouth; and Moira E. Tierney of New Bedford.

Port Council member George J. Balco of Tisbury was also present, as were the following members of management: General Manager Robert B. Davis; Reservations and Customer Relations Manager Gina L. Barboza; Port Captain Charles G. Gifford; Director of Information Technologies Mary T.H. Claffey; Director of Engineering and Maintenance Carl R. Walker; Woods Hole Terminal Reconstruction Project Manager William J. Cloutier; Assistant Treasurer Courtney M. Oliveira; and General Counsel Steven M. Sayers.

Video and Audio Recording of Today’s Meeting: Mr. Ranney announced that All Media Productions was making a video

and audio recording of today’s meeting in public session for Martha’s Vineyard Community Television, also known as MVTV, and that Louisa Hufstader, George Brennan and Sean Driscoll were also making an audio recording of today’s meeting in public session.

Recognition of Public Officials: Mr. Ranney recognized Dukes County Commissioner Leon Brathwaithe,

Tisbury Fire Chief John Shilling, Martha’s Vineyard Commissioner Josh Goldstein, Tisbury Town Administrator John (Jay) Grande, Tisbury Harbor Master John Crocker, Dukes County Commissioner and Tisbury Selectman Tristan R. Israel, and Tisbury Selectman Malinda F. Loberg in the audience and thanked them for attending today’s meeting.

April 23, 2018 Minutes of the Public Session

Page 2

Minutes:

IT WAS VOTED -- upon Mr. Hanover’s motion, seconded by Ms. Tierney -- to approve the minutes of the Members’ meeting in public session on March 20, 2018.

VOTING AYE NAY Mr. Ranney 35 % Mr. Jones 10 % Mr. Hanover 35 % Ms. Gladfelter 10 % Ms. Tierney 10 % ______

TOTAL 100 % 0 %

Update on the Status of the M/V Woods Hole, the M/V Island Home and the M/V Martha’s Vineyard:

Mr. Davis updated the Members on all of the mechanical problems the Authority has had with the M/V Woods Hole, the M/V Martha’s Vineyard and the M/V Island Home since their last meeting on March 20, 2018, as well as all of the actions the Authority has taken to resolve them. Specifically, Mr. Davis advised the Members that: (a) On March 22nd, the M/V Woods Hole was taken out of service after

experiencing issues with its propeller pitch controls. The Authority’s engineering staff and the vendor’s technician determined that the check valves had broken in the vessel’s port propeller shaft and, after obtaining replacement valves, installed the new valves in both the port and starboard shafts and reassembled the units. The United States Coast Guard then cleared the vessel to return to service on March 25th. However, on March 27th, an alarm code went off in the vessel’s control panel. Even though the Captain had experienced no loss of control or power, the Coast Guard was appropriately notified and the vessel was taken out of service to Fairhaven until the issue could be investigated. Following the arrival of the technical representatives from both Hundested Propeller and Prime Mover Controls, the vessel filters were changed on both reduction gears (i.e., the suction filter, the filter for clutch, and the filter for pitch on each reduction gear) even though nothing abnormal was


Page 3

found. The Authority then took the vessel on light ship sea trials with both technical representatives on board to monitor the system while the Authority engaged in repeated maneuvers in an attempt to have the alarm activate again and the system switch to the secondary (backup) Actuator driver signals. These light ship sea trials lasted nearly three hours while the crew tried again and again to create a condition that would cause the alarm to activate. Throughout the entire sea trials, the system and all of the vessel’s equipment were fully responsive and operational. After the light ship sea trials, the vessel’s gear was examined, including the hydraulic check valves that had recently been replaced. All of the valves were found to be in good order.

On March 31st, the Authority conducted additional sea trials with a simulated cargo load similar to what had been on board when the alarm activated on March 27th. As with the previous light ship sea trials, both technical representatives were on board to monitor the system while the Authority engaged in repeated maneuvers in an attempt to have the alarm activate again and the system switch to the secondary (backup) Actuator driver signals. These additional sea trials lasted nearly another four hours while Authority Captains engaged in maneuvers to simulate dockings at and departures from the Authority’s slips at both Vineyard Haven and Woods Hole. Throughout the entire additional sea trials, the system and all of the vessel’s equipment were fully responsive and operational.

Following more sea trials on April 2nd, the Coast Guard cleared the vessel and approved the Authority’s plan to place the M/V Woods Hole on the Hyannis to Nantucket route April 3rd and 4th for further monitoring by the technicians. The plan then called for the vessel to return on April 5th to Vineyard Haven to resume its published schedule on the Martha’s Vineyard route, but due to weather conditions the vessel remained on the Hyannis to Nantucket route for an additional day. At the end of the operating day on April 5th, the vessel sailed to Vineyard Haven to resume its scheduled service on Friday, April 6th.

(b) At the end of its operating day on March 20th, the M/V Martha’s Vineyard

had another generator issue, and the Coast Guard issued a “no sail” order. The following day, the vessel was taken out of service for additional work and testing, and was transported to the Authority’s Fairhaven vessel maintenance facility. The Authority’s engineering department and the technician for the vendor of the generator identified the parts of the switchboard which required replacement and, after those parts were replaced, the Coast Guard cleared the vessel to return to service on March 27th. But then, during the vessel’s engine start-up on March 28th, the


Page 4

breaker for the vessel’s steering pump malfunctioned. The Chief Engineer on board the vessel recycled the breaker and was able to get the pump back on line, but the Authority cancelled the vessel’s trips in order to assess the situation. The Authority’s engineering and maintenance department personnel and the manufacturer’s technician determined that a breaker in the vessel’s electrical panel needed to be replaced. The new breaker was expedited, installed and tested in time for the vessel to be inspected and undergo sea trials with the Coast Guard early the next morning. As a result, on March 29th, the vessel was cleared to resume service starting with its 7:00 a.m. scheduled trip, although later the same day the crew had an issue with the bow doors which resulted in a delay of up to an hour for trips after 6:00 p.m. On March 31st, what originated as a breaker tripping on the bow thruster was ultimately diagnosed as a control gear failure to release. The 5:00 p.m. trip to the island and corresponding 6:15 p.m. trip off island were cancelled as the maintenance staff addressed the situation. Then during the evening of April 19th the vessel had an issue with the bow doors again. This time, however, the weld on one of the rollers failed, causing the housing and roller to separate from the door and fall to the vehicle deck. The following morning a spare roller unit was installed in place of the failed unit. While visual inspections of the other roller units found no signs of weld failure, the crew has extended the safety zone around the door as an additional safety measure.

Also during this past month, the Authority’s maintenance and engineering crews along with workers from Senseco have been onboard to address the punch list items left over from the mid-life refurbishment. Due to the number of items remaining open, the Authority’s staff concluded that the Authority would not be able to address them all during the vessel’s next scheduled repair period that was scheduled for May 17th through 22nd. Therefore, this morning, the M/V Martha’s Vineyard was taken off the run and replaced by the M/V Woods Hole, which was in turn replaced by the M/V Katama. The M/V Martha’s Vineyard is now at the Authority’s Fairhaven facility where the remaining punch list items are expected to be completed by May 3rd so that the vessel can be back on the run for the Martha’s Vineyard’s Chili-fest Weekend.

(c) Meanwhile, the M/V Island Home, which was originally expected to be

back in service on March 24th, remained in Fairhaven. Part of the delay in the vessel’s return to service was attributable to delays in the shipyard. The vessel’s return to service was then expected to be delayed by six days, but nevertheless it was still expected to be in service for the Easter holiday


Page 5

weekend. Then on March 29th, while undergoing a Coast Guard inspection, it was determined that there was an issue with one of the bow thrusters. The issue required the system technician to return from out of the country to re-install the software program. He arrived late in the evening on April 2nd and, after the repairs were completed, the Coast Guard cleared the vessel to return to service on April 5th.

Mr. Davis noted that, while these issues were mostly isolated to vessels

providing service on the Martha’s Vineyard route, they impacted service on the Nantucket route as well. For example, Mr. Davis said, on March 25th, the M/V Gay Head was diverted from its schedule on the Nantucket route in order to provide two round trips on the Martha’s Vineyard route before returning to service later in the day on the Nantucket route. Mr. Davis stated that, in addition, as of April 2nd, the operating schedule called for the M/V Sankaty to be providing service on the Nantucket route in addition to the M/V Eagle and M/V Gay Head; but that no additional service with that third vessel was provided on April 2nd, although the M/V Woods Hole provided it beginning April 3rd until it was finally replaced by the M/V Sankaty on April 6th.

Mr. Davis then thanked the Authority’s Woods Hole neighbors for being so understanding this past month, observing that there have been a number of occasions in which the Authority needed to run some late night or early morning trips in order to minimize some of the service disruptions these vessel cancellations caused. Again, Mr. Davis apologized for the noise that may have been generated during the late night and early morning hours, although he observed that the Authority attempted to make every effort to minimize any noise generated by its operations.

Mr. Davis also apologized to the residents of Martha’s Vineyard and the commuters who rely on the Authority’s to provide safe and reliable service and who had to endure a seemingly endless barrage of service disruptions. Mr. Davis noted that the Authority has long taken pride in being able to provide a dependable service and that the staff is embarrassed by their failure to do so this past month. Improvements to Operations:

Finally, Mr. Davis reported that with the increased demand for service and the complexities of the Authority’s newer vessels, the staff also needs to be looking at the Authority’s vessel operations. For example, Mr. Davis said, the staff needs to look at additional training opportunities the Authority can provide


Page 6

which will provide the necessary tools to properly use advanced technologies to their fullest. Mr. Davis further noted that members of the traveling public also have raised concerns about the Authority’s vessels leaving late or cancelling too often, and he stated that the staff will look into this as well, although they realize that sometimes a delay is attributable to a tight turnaround schedule and at other times it can be a function of customer service.

Mr. Davis then observed that, in light of all of the vessel mechanical

failures the Authority had experienced this past month, it clearly needs to look at ways to improve its maintenance of its vessels, and he stated that the issues which need to be considered include the following:

Whether the Authority provides enough time in repair for each vessel.

Whether the Authority’s practice of scheduling its vessels for dry-docks every other year in lieu of the United States Coast Guard’s minimum requirement of twice within a five-year period helps the Authority to better maintain its vessels.

Whether the Authority’s practice of having a Senior Chief Engineer and a Senior Captain assigned to each vessel is effective, and whether those assignments can be made more effective.

How the Authority’s project management and oversight of its maintenance and repair process can be improved.

How the Authority can improve communications from the Maintenance Department so that it can plan and respond better to problems that are encountered during repair.

How the Authority can develop better plans for scheduling its vessel dry-docks and repairs to ensure that its resources are allocated appropriately.

Mr. Davis further stated that, of course, the Authority needs to take

measures to ensure that it avoids a repeat of the situations it encountered this past month when, in each instance, there was only one person who could fix the mechanical problem that resulted in one of its vessels being out of service, especially when that one person may be in a foreign country and unavailable for days or even weeks.

Mr. Davis also noted that the Authority had to improve its communications and information technologies and that, ironically, the staff had discussed this need with the Port Council and the Authority Members before this past month’s events. In this regard, Mr. Davis recounted how, in February 2018, he had proposed the creation of a Communications Director position and how the Authority Members had approved the creation of that new position at their March


Page 7

20, 2018 meeting. Since then, Mr. Davis said, the staff advertised the position in local and regional newspapers as well as on the Authority’s website, and the advertisements have generated a significant number of applicants, and that more were expected before the deadline for submitting applications passes at the end of this week. Mr. Davis stated that the staff will then schedule interviews over the coming weeks to keep this process moving forward.

Meanwhile, Mr. Davis said, the staff will be looking at additional ways to

communicate with the Authority’s customers. In this regard, Mr. Davis noted that the Authority already has changed the service for its email messages so that they can be distributed without delay, as the staff had discovered during one of the Nor’easters earlier this year that the Authority’s emails were not being delivered until five or six days after they were sent. In addition, Mr. Davis stated that the staff would like to sit down and work with the area’s Chambers of Commerce to discuss other improvements the Authority can make, and that he appreciated the offer from the Martha’s Vineyard Chamber of Commerce to get together and discuss how the Authority’s communications can be improved.

Mr. Davis also observed that the Authority needs to look at its information

technologies to ensure that it is staying ahead of any potential problems. For example, Mr. Davis said, he wants to make certain that the Authority does not have a repeat of the issues it had with the summer reservations opening for the general public that occurred this past January, when the website essentially crashed because of a configuration issue. Although Mr. Davis stated that next year the Authority could open summer reservations separately for each island by a week to lessen the demand on the system, the Authority still needed to ensure that the system has the capability of handling such a big push.

Mr. Davis noted that the Authority’s website is another area where some

improvements can be made. In this regard, Mr. Davis stated that the staff already is looking at what items on the website generate the most comments and how they can be revised to provide clearer information or better customer service solutions. For example, Mr. Davis said, customers frequently ask how to remove cars that they no longer own from their profiles, and the Authority needs to allow them to do that. Mr. Davis stated that the Authority also needs to make certain that it is using currently available technologies to improve its customers’ experience, including the use of RFID cards, scanners, and the development of a mobile app that can be used by customers to make reservations and receive notices.

Mr. Davis stated that the Authority also needs to look at its vessel

operations, particularly given the increased demand for its services and the complexities of its new vessels. In this regard, Mr. Davis observed that the


Page 8

Authority, like many industries, is looking at an aging workforce and that it needs to look at additional training opportunities for its employees that will provide them with the necessary tools to properly use advanced technologies to their fullest. Mr. Davis noted that not only will this improve the Authority’s operations, but it will help to have the Authority viewed as a premier choice for those individuals seeking job opportunities in the maritime field.

Mr. Davis acknowledged that Mr. Hanover also has raised concerns about

the Authority’s vessels leaving late or cancelling too often, and he stated that the staff can look into that; but he noted that a delay sometimes is attributable to a tight turnaround schedule. For example, Mr. Davis said, the operating schedule for the Martha’s Vineyard route has the M/V Martha’s Vineyard’s first trip leaving Vineyard Haven at 6:00 a.m., arriving at Woods Hole at 6:45 a.m., and then scheduled to leave Woods Hole at 7:00 a.m. leaving only a 15-minute turnaround time to off-load passengers and vehicles traveling off-island and then load its new passengers and vehicles going to the island. Mr. Davis noted that, while there are times that the vessel is capable of leaving on time at 7:00 a.m., that trip generally leaves late and the vessel makes up some of the time during the trip to the island. Further, Mr. Davis said, if the Authority were to increase the vessel’s scheduled turnaround time for that trip to the more standard 30 minutes, it would have a domino effect in the vessel’s scheduled sailing times throughout the day. Nevertheless, Mr. Davis stated that, as the staff develops their proposed 2019 Operating Schedules, they can more fully investigate how a change in this turnaround time would impact the rest of the Authority’s sailing schedules, and one solution may be to adjust the vessels’ anticipated arrival times so they more accurately reflect their expected arrivals and then discussing shuttle bus connections with the Martha’s Vineyard Regional Transit Authority.

Mr. Davis also noted that a delay sometimes is a result of providing good

customer service. For example, Mr. Davis said, the Authority holds the last trips of its vessels for school sports teams that are returning late from games even if those delays impact the vessels’ start times the following mornings. But he observed that the more difficult customer service calls include instances when the terminal agents see someone being dropped off and heading for the boat, which then requires them to decide whether the netting stays up or comes down, knowing that their decisions impact other customers who are already on the boat and need to get to their destinations on time.

Mr. Davis stated that the Authority could have a policy of closing the

boarding process at a specific time prior to the vessel’s departure time, similar to what most airlines do, which would require the remaining customers to wait for the next trip. But Mr. Davis stated that this policy could also impact the vehicle loading process where the Authority currently provides a short grace


Page 9

period for vehicles that fail to arrive 30 minutes in advance of a scheduled trip. Mr. Davis noted that this grace period generally ends when the boarding process begins and, while in some cases the Authority could begin loading vehicles sooner onto the vessels, this would result in those late arrivals potentially ending up as standby vehicles.

Mr. Davis stated that, instead of taking these approaches, he would like the opportunity to review in more detail the reasons for each vessel’s arrival and departure times, as that review may show particular patterns that will illustrate systemic problems with the Authority’s vessel operations or the schedules themselves that can then be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Davis also observed that the Authority will need to factor in some of the scheduling problems that are being caused by the Woods Hole terminal construction activities, although he noted that those problems will go away when the construction is completed.

Mr. Davis then stated that he placed this item on the agenda so that he

could provide the Members with some of his thoughts and hear some of theirs, and he further stated that he was aware that what has transpired these past few weeks needs to be looked at so that the Authority does not repeat its past failures. In addition, Mr. Davis said, if the Members wanted to have a consultant review the Authority’s operations, he would propose that these items be reviewed separately. In this regard, Mr. Davis noted that the Authority was already working on hiring a Communications Director and making certain improvements to its information technology systems. Therefore, Mr. Davis suggested that the Authority could hold off having a consultant work on those areas, and that the same could be said with respect to the Authority’s vessel operations, as the staff is looking into what training levels are appropriate and what modifications can be made to the operating schedules to ensure on-time arrivals.

Mr. Davis then stated that the one area where he was suggesting that a

consultant look at is the Authority’s maintenance program to determine what industry standards exist with respect to vessel maintenance, how long other ferry operators schedule their vessels for maintenance, and whether the Authority has the appropriate level of project oversight and project management. Mr. Davis noted that, if the Members were to proceed in that direction, he has identified a potential consultant who had worked directly in the industry for more than thirty years before becoming a consultant and that, while he was currently working on some other projects, he could begin working on analyzing the Authority’s vessel maintenance operations soon.


Page 10

Mr. Davis then noted that Mr. Hanover similarly has been looking at other consultants to review the Authority’s operations, and that Mr. Hanover has a slightly different take on what subjects should be reviewed. Mr. Davis stated that, for example, Mr. Hanover would like a consultant to review the Authority’s information technologies systems and why its boats are leaving and arriving late, but he stated that Mr. Hanover should probably describe the proposal he has received for a review of the Authority’s operations, which he then distributed to all of the Members.

Mr. Hanover then stated that he and Mr. Davis both want the same thing,

but that he was not sure that it could be done in-house. Rather, Mr. Hanover, said, he felt that the Authority needs to have professionals come in and look at the entire operation, including information technologies and communications, which he said was a huge issue. Mr. Hanover further stated that he already has received this one proposal and that he did not feel the Authority has another month to wait to get these things in order. Accordingly, Mr. Hanover suggested that the staff take two weeks to come up with their proposal and that the Members then have another meeting to consider this subject again, but he emphasized that he did not believe the Authority could wait another month to start addressing these issues.

Ms. Gladfelter observed that everyone in the room today depends on the

Authority’s ferries, as she did when she lived on an island for a long time, and that while the Authority may have had a crisis period this past month, in general the island residents are used to a very good service from the Authority and that is part of the reason why this situation was so frustrating for everyone. While Ms. Gladfelter stated that she agreed that everything in the organization should be looked at and that any opportunity to improve the Authority’s operations should be pursued, she cautioned that the Authority has operated very well and she expressed concern about diverting a lot of time and resources to something that could and should be done in-house. Nevertheless, Ms. Gladfelter stated that she understood Mr. Hanover’s concern and that it might be a good idea to have someone review the Authority’s vessel maintenance program, particularly since acquiring another vessel to use as a spare when needed would be very expensive. But Ms. Gladfelter stated that, while she agreed there could be improvements, she did not necessarily agree that there has to be a major review of all of the Authority’s operations.

Mr. Jones stated that, because he has been in the boat business, he can

most appreciate all of the vessels’ breakdowns and maintenance issues, knowing all of the components that these vessel have. As a dealer, Mr. Jones said, he constantly cringed whenever he received a call from one of his customers whose engine had broken down, whatever the cause may have been. Mr. Jones stated


Page 11

that, while the Authority constantly has to try to do better and service its customers, what happened this past month was absolutely unbelievable with all of these systems problems that were not related at all, and that it was also a mystery to him how the Authority could have detected the problems with these component parts, some of which (such as the check valves) are extremely small. Mr. Jones also observed that even though the Authority’s vessels have been very reliable work horses over the years, he can understand why anyone who had scheduled a trip off-island was upset, but that everything that could go wrong did go wrong this past month.

Mr. Jones then stated that the main thing was that Mr. Davis has a handle

on the situation and that he appreciated his proposed course of actions. Therefore, while Mr. Jones stated that he appreciated Mr. Hanover’s suggestions, right now he thought the Authority needs to continue to upgrade its systems, which it continually is doing, and to recognize that things happen sometimes, although how they all happened at once was beyond him. Mr. Jones also noted that the Authority did not have any acceptable excuses for these events, and that the only thing it can do is to do better.

Ms. Tierney reminded Ms. Gladfelter and Mr. Jones that none of them lives

on an island, and that the Authority’s primary purpose is to serve the residents of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard. Ms. Tierney also noted that the Authority had not done a very good job in the last couple of months, that everyone in management has acknowledged that, and that the Members needed to as well. In addition, Ms. Tierney stated that she was not so sure that management can review its own operations at this point in time, so she did not think that was the precise way to go. On the other hand, Ms. Tierney said, she was not sure that the Authority should incur the significant costs of bringing in an outside consultant at this particular stage. Accordingly, Ms. Tierney suggested that management should present a proposal to review what has happened, why it has happened and what the Authority is doing to make sure it doesn’t happen again, and the Members should put in place whatever checks and balances are necessary to address any of those issues in the future.

Ms. Tierney also suggested that the Authority should obtain proposals

from other firms who have experience with how a quasi-utility like the Authority operates; that the proposals should describe how the firms would identify how the Authority’s problems arose (for example, whether the problems were systemic or the result of a perfect storm) and how they would address the Authority’s weaknesses; and that the Members should then review all of the proposals and make a decision. But Ms. Tierney emphasized that the Members could not afford to kick the can down the road, observing that the problems are real and are here


Page 12

now, and that the Members can never forget their first obligation, which is to the residents of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket.

Mr. Hanover stated that he appreciated his fellow Members’ comments,

and recounted how the Authority’s previous Nantucket Member, H. Flint Ranney, had joked with him about how Mr. Hanover’s constituents thought they had a bridge to the mainland. Mr. Hanover stated that, yes, Martha’s Vineyard does have a bridge, as the Authority has been very reliable; but he stated that those three weeks in March had been pure hell and that we was still feeling their resounding effects. Mr. Hanover also declared that the Authority has to rebuild the confidence of its customers and that, while he can understand how the Authority might have one issue with one vessel, having three vessels out of service at the same time, which was unprecedented in the Authority’s history, can never happen again.

Mr. Hanover also observed that his concerns were not just about the vessel

breakdowns, recounting how the Authority’s computer system had gone down three times so far this year, including when it crashed on the busiest reservation day of the year. Mr. Hanover stated that obviously the Authority’s information technology needs to be looked at, as do its communications with its customers, and while systems may be in place, many of the Authority’s customers are not aware of them and the systems themselves have to be better.

While Mr. Hanover stated that the Authority’s management had been

marvelous over those three weeks in March and that their traffic management had been incredible, he personally felt that the Authority needs to have someone from the outside come in and take an overall look at all of the Authority’s operations before the summer season so that the Authority does not experience any more complications, and that he also did not think that the Authority can wait another month to do so.

Mr. Ranney then stated that he and Nantucket residents strongly backed

Mr. Davis, observing that when there are trip cancellations on the Nantucket route which are nobody’s fault and sometimes continue for days, the Authority’s management staff scrambles to develop back-up plans to provide service. In addition, Mr. Ranney said, while he understands Mr. Hanover’s concerns, he has a problem spending a lot of money on an outside consultant because every dime that the Authority spends comes out of the fares that each of them pays as customers and, if the Authority spends more money, everyone is going to have pay more money. In this regard, Mr. Ranney noted that he was not just an Authority Member, but also a customer just like everyone else in the room that day.


Page 13

Mr. Ranney stated that it means a lot to him to keep the Authority running during the summer as it was now running again and that, if a consultant were to return in a month, the staff already will be concentrating on operating the boats and it would be a mistake to distract them during the high season. As a result, Mr. Ranney said, nothing will be able to be fixed during the middle of the season. Accordingly, while Mr. Ranney stated that he understood Mr. Hanover’s pressing need for a review of the Authority’s operations, he felt that it was something that could be done in-house piece by piece, and he observed that some of it already was in place and ongoing.

Mr. Jones also observed that the Members would already know if there

was a huge problem internally; that he thought the Authority’s issues were more a matter of fine tuning what it has; and that he has a lot of faith in the staff and the Authority’s engineers and captains, as well as all of the other good people who work for the Authority. Mr. Jones also noted that both outlines presented by Mr. Davis and Mr. Hanover were pretty full and that it might make sense for someone to undertake an overview. But Mr. Jones stated that he felt all of the problems that were outlined can be addressed in-house, and that he just did not see how a consultant could come in and have everything fixed for the summer.

Mr. Hanover then declared that he had never suggested that he does not

have confidence in Mr. Davis or his management team, but that in the same respect Mr. Davis should not be required to ride the Authority’s ferries for three weeks talking to customers to appease them. Mr. Hanover also declared that the Authority should never have three vessels break down at the same time ever again. Accordingly, Mr. Hanover stated that he disagreed with the other Members and that he thinks these issues need to be addressed before the summer, as no one knows when the computer system will go down again or when there will be another problem with one of the boats. Indeed, Mr. Hanover said, the Authority does not yet have the M/V Martha’s Vineyard back in service and there are more than 200 items on that boat which need to be fixed. Ms. Gladfelter observed that there was not a single person in the room that day who wants these events to happen again, but that no one can provide the Authority with a guarantee that three vessels won’t ever have mechanical problems at the same time. Ms. Gladfelter then apologized to everyone who was inconvenienced by the events, but she also thanked everyone who works for the Authority whom she saw working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to alleviate the problems as best as could be done. In addition, Ms. Gladfelter said, she thought Mr. Davis had been very innovative in moving around the schedules and getting other boats.


Page 14

Ms. Gladfelter also apologized to everyone who uses the Authority to commute from the mainland to the island, as well as the Woods Hole residents who had to experience boats making extra trips late in the evening and early in the morning. Ms. Gladfelter observed that many people were inconvenienced by these events and that nobody wants this to happen again, but that she knew that Mr. Davis was using this as a “lessons learned” experience to determine what the Authority can do better the next time. Ms. Tierney cautioned that the Members had to be careful not to interpret Mr. Hanover’s suggestion as a criticism of management, as it was clearly not a criticism. In this regard, Ms. Tierney noted that all of the Members have known Mr. Davis for a long time, that Mr. Davis has been with the Authority for a long time, and that all of the Members have the utmost respect for the Authority’s current management. But Ms. Tierney stated that she thought the Authority still needed to see independently why the past couple of substantial mistakes happened and what the Authority can do to make certain that they don’t happen again, and that this review deserves some neutral oversight.

IT WAS VOTED -- upon Mr. Hanover’s motion, seconded by Mr. Jones -- to have the management staff within the next two weeks present the Members with an alternative to the proposal that had been given to the Members that day.


TOTAL 100 % 0 %

Results of Operations:

Mr. Davis then summarized the results of the Authority’s operations for February 2018, as set forth in a business summary for that month which had been provided to the Members and the public. Mr. Davis reported that the Authority had carried more passengers (up 4.6%), more automobiles (up 4.4%) and more trucks (up 8.5%) during the month than it had carried during the same month in 2017, and that the Authority also had parked more cars (up 7.7%) that


Page 15

month than it had parked in February 2017. Mr. Davis noted that the increased number of passengers, automobiles and trucks carried by the Authority in February 2018 compared to February 2017 was probably attributable to the fact that the Authority had a number of weather-related trip cancellations in February 2017. Mr. Davis further reported that, for the first two months of 2018, the Authority had carried more passengers (up 0.2%), fewer automobiles (down 0.6%) and more trucks (up 3.1%) than it had carried during the first two months of 2017.

Mr. Davis also reported that the Authority’s net operating loss for the

month of February had been around $4,182,000, approximately $1,085,000 higher than what had been projected, with operating revenues and other income $173,000 higher than projected, and operating expenses, fixed charges and other expenses $1,258,000 higher than projected. In this regard, Mr. Davis noted that the increase in operating expenses was primarily due to a $1,160,000 increase in the Authority’s maintenance expenses for both its vessels (the M/V Island Home, the M/V Martha’s Vineyard and the M/V Woods Hole) and its terminals (the Woods Hole, Vineyard Haven and Oak Bluffs terminals).

Mr. Davis further reported that, the Authority’s total operating loss for the

first two months of 2018 had been around $7,277,000, approximately $724,000 higher than the amount projected in the 2018 Operating Budget. Mr. Davis noted that operating revenues and other income during this period had been $7,500 lower than projected, and that the Authority’s operating expenses and fixed charges had been $716,000 higher than projected during the year.

Construction of the Authority’s New General Offices:

Mr. Davis reported that the contractor for the Authority’s new administra-tive office building continues to address some of the remaining punch list items, including the following:

The testing and certification of the “BDA” (Bi-Directional amplifiers) system which is for communications within the building for the fire department was completed two weeks ago.

The HVAC contractor continues to work on the system but part of the problems appear to be related to air leaks in the ducts. In order to seal the ducts the vendor needed to shut the system down for one or two days. They did so this past weekend and the Authority is awaiting a report of their progress. The HVAC contractor also plans to start up the chiller system for the air conditioning mode this week.


Page 16

Finally, the landscaping crew was onsite last week starting the landscaping around the building.

Woods Hole Terminal Reconstruction Project:

Mr. Davis reported that the Woods Hole terminal reconstruction project is

moving forward as follows:

During this past month, Jay Cashman, Inc. assisted the Authority in attaching temporary fenders to the bulkhead of Slip 2 that will be used until the dolphin that failed in that slip last month can be replaced. Cashman also assisted the SSA with its crane so that the SSA could make some repairs to Slip 2’s transfer bridge.

Earlier this month, Cashman moved its barge into Slip 1 and got to work on the pile driving for the temporary dolphins required to keep Slip 1 operational while the wharf that currently forms the north side of that slip is excavated.

Meanwhile, the site contractor excavated the area between Slips 1 and 2 where the foundation for the passenger platforms will be relocated, and then compacted the soils in that area. Cashman then set the rebar in place, built the formwork for the concrete slab, and poured the concrete for the main platform.

Testing of the contaminated soils from the wharf area has been completed, and the site contractor will dispose of the soils this week.

Meanwhile, Cashman began the demolition of the old terminal building’s foundation last Saturday.

Mr. Davis further reported that a property owner on Water Street has

informed the Authority that she has experienced tremors and vibrations during the Authority’s pile driving operations. Mr. Davis noted that, as part of the contract specifications for the waterside work, the Authority’s engineers had established a vibration monitoring program that calls for monitoring properties within a 200-foot radius of pile driving activities and that, beyond that distance, the engineers feel that ground vibrations are attenuated by the soil. Mr. Davis observed that currently there are no properties within this radius but that, nevertheless, after receiving this property owner’s email, the staff has decided to establish vibration monitoring near the property line at Luscombe and Railroad Avenues. Mr. Davis stated that the staff wants to verify that the pile driving operations are not currently exceeding any generally accepted thresholds, which are 0.25 inches/second to 2.0 inches/second, and that if the threshold values


Page 17

are reached, the contractor will be required to alter operations, such as reducing the energy on the pile hammer to reduce construction vibrations below the threshold levels.

In response to a question from Mr. Hanover as to when the Woods Hole

terminal’s Slip 2 will be available, Mr. Davis stated that Slip 2’s fender system needs to be replaced, but that because of the delays that have occurred in driving piles, the staff will be installing Yokohama fenders in the slip for the summer and then replacing the fender system during the fall. Mr. Davis also noted that the Yokohama fenders cannot be installed until the pile driving is completed, which should be around May 5th, so that Slip 2 should be available shortly after that.

M/V Martha’s Vineyard Mid-Life Refurbishment Project: Mr. Davis then reported that, as he had mentioned earlier, there remains

a number of open items on a punch list to be addressed on the M/V Martha’s Vineyard. Mr. Davis noted that originally the list had grown to 257 items, but it has since been paired down to 126 open items. Mr. Davis also noted that, while some of these items are relatively minor, such as mounting a paper towel dispenser in the crew area, some high priority items still remain on the list, such as fixing the vents on the sinks, urinals and toilet drains. Mr. Davis stated that the vessel had left this morning to go to the Authority’s Fairhaven Vessel Maintenance Facility and that all of the work was expected to be completed by May 3rd.

Potential Barging of Municipal Solid Waste from Martha’s Vineyard: Mr. Sayers then reported that Tetra Tech, the Authority’s consulting firm

which is analyzing the feasibility of barging municipal solid waste from Martha’s Vineyard to New Bedford, should be submitting its report this week so that it can be reviewed and discussed by the Port Council and the Members at their meetings next month although he noted that those discussions may be delayed by a month while the staff develops their recommendation on how the Authority’s operations should be reviewed. Mr. Sayers stated that the subject matter of the report has been expanded to include the feasibility of barging not only municipal solid waste, but also construction and demolition matter (C&D), and that it appears that municipal solid waste constitutes approximately 50% of the solid waste stream from Martha’s Vineyard, and that C&D and recyclables constitute approximately 40% and 10%, respectively. Mr. Sayers also reported that last


Page 18

month Ralph Packer had given him and the Authority’s consultant a tour of Goodale Construction Company’s property on Martha’s Vineyard where a grinding machine could be used to grind up C&D into chips so that it can be transported like gravel.

Potential Freight Service between

New Bedford and Martha’s Vineyard:

Mr. Sayers also reported that the staff would be having a meeting with MassDevelopment representatives later this week to discuss potential uses of the New Bedford State Pier, which might include a freight ferry service between New Bedford and Martha’s Vineyard. Mr. Sayers stated that, while MassDevelopment is now in a better position to understand the operations at the State Pier and what may be possible there, it may not want to explore any possible uses of the State Pier that are not supported by everyone who has an interest in that facility.

Mr. Sayers also noted that the New Bedford Harbor Development Commis-

sion, which is now called the “New Bedford Port Authority” (NBPA), had just issued a draft Strategic Plan for the years 2018 through 2023 and that, in its draft Strategic Plan, the NBPA indicates that:

The NBPA supports the expansion of passenger ferry service for the purpose of drawing visitors to the New Bedford waterfront, but that support does not necessarily extend to the operation of freight ferry service from the State Pier.

The State Pier has been neglected by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for so long that it requires significant renovations, but those renovations cannot be undertaken until there is an understanding about future uses of the Pier among the NBPA, the City of New Bedford, and the Common-wealth.

It appears that the NBPA would like any freight ferry terminal to be located at the North Terminal, which is not yet constructed to accommodate a freight ferry service, although the NBPA continues to seek federal and state funding for its construction. One drawback of the North Terminal is that the MassDOT has classified the New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge as “functionally obsolete,” and its repair costs are projected to be around $45,000,000. Mr. Sayers also recounted how, at this past month’s Port Council meeting,

New Bedford Port Council member Edward C. Anthes-Washburn stated that the NBPA was not categorically against using the State Pier for freight ferry service,


Page 19

but that any such service has to be compatible with the passenger ferry service and other activities that are already taking place at the State Pier. Mr. Sayers also noted that Mr. Anthes-Washburn had said that before New Bedford Mayor Jonathan F. Mitchell will support any proposal for any particular use of the State Pier, a comprehensive plan for the State Pier needs to be articulated and that, in this regard, Mr. Anthes-Washburn had noted that the NBPA does not control the State Pier.

Ms. Tierney noted that there are other options in New Bedford than the

State Pier, and Mr. Sayers agreed. In response to questions from Ms. Gladfelter, Mr. Sayers stated that the NBPA is a separate commission from the City of New Bedford, Ms. Tierney stated that the NBPA’s commissioners are appointed by the City, and both Mr. Sayers and Ms. Tierney noted that the Mayor of New Bedford is also a commissioner of the NBPA as well as its Chairman.

The Authority’s New “Lifeline” Cards:

Mr. Davis recounted how, at their March 20, 2018 meeting, the Members

had approved the staff’s proposed issuance of new RFID “Lifeline Cards” for travel on the Authority’s traditional ferries and he noted that, in order for the Authority to remain compliant with the Passenger Embarkation Fee Statute, the use of the new Lifeline Cards will be limited to one individual per trip. Mr. Davis then reported that:

the new Lifeline cards had been ordered and were expected to arrive this week;

the programming changes for the new Lifeline Cards will be made by the end of the month, after which the card data will be downloaded into the Point of Sale system;

the staff expects to distribute informational posters explaining the new cards as well as include a feature about the cards in the May 1, 2018 e-News;

customers will continue to be able to reload the existing 10-ride “FerryPass” cards through May 14, 2018; and

the SSA will begin selling the new Lifeline Cards on May 15, 2018, although it will continue to honor all of the coupons remaining in customers’ FerryPass cards.


Page 20

Pre-Season Promotion for High-Speed Passenger Ticket Books:

Mr. Davis also reported that the Authority had sold 4,215 10-ride high-speed passenger ferry ticket books during its two-week pre-season sale of those books this year, which represented a 5.1% decrease from the 4,443 books the Authority had sold during last year’s pre-season sale of those books. Mr. Davis stated that it appears that individuals and businesses that typically purchase these books during the Authority’s pre-season sale did not need to buy as many as they needed to buy last year, as the number of unused coupons on existing ticket books increased by nearly 21% from February 28, 2017 to February 28, 2018.

Contract for the Emergency Replacement of a Failed Dolphin in Slip # 2 of the Woods Hole Terminal: Mr. Davis informed the Members that, in accordance with the authoriza-

tion they had given him last month, he had awarded Contract No. 03-2018 for emergency dolphin repairs for the Woods Hole terminal’s Slip 2 to Burnham Associates, Inc. of Salem, Massachusetts, the lowest eligible and responsible bidder for the contract, for a Total Contract Price of $129,000. Mr. Davis recounted how, following the recent dredging in the Slip in conjunction with the strong winds and tides during the first week of March, a dolphin in Slip 2 had failed. Mr. Davis then informed the Members that, until the repair work can be completed, the slip has been fitted with a temporary fendering system utilizing removable Yokohama fenders and that, while the staff had planned on getting this work completed before the early summer operating schedule, work in the slip cannot begin until the Authority is able to use Slip 1 again. Mr. Davis noted that, because Cashman will be working in Slip 1 constructing the temporary dolphins there until early May, the Slip 2 dolphin repairs may be delayed until after the summer.

Approval of Charter Agreement with SeaStreak LLC: Mr. Davis then asked the Members to approve the charter agreement the

Authority had reached with SeaStreak LLC for the high-speed passenger service it provided with the M/V Whaling City Express between Woods Hole and Vineyard Haven from March 28, 2018 through April 5, 2018 when the M/V Woods Hole, the M/V Martha’s Vineyard and the M/V Island Home were out of service. In this regard, Mr. Davis noted that, during this time, when none of the other Authority vessels were available to provide service, the staff contacted SeaStreak


Page 21

to determine whether they had a vessel which could supplement the Authority’s service, and that SeaStreak quickly dispatched the M/V Whaling City Express from their facilities in Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, to assist. Mr. Davis also noted that, initially, the term of the charter was going to be for seven days, but when repairs to the M/V Island Home’s bow thruster caused a further delay in providing full scheduled service, the charter was extended by two additional days, bringing the charter’s total cost to $126,500.

After Ms. Gladfelter moved to approve the charter agreement, Mr. Jones

asked that the motion also express the Members’ appreciation to SeaStreak for their willingness to help the Authority out, and Ms. Gladfelter so amended her motion. Ms. Tierney also observed that SeaStreak has been a fabulous partner with the Authority, recounting how they are willing to loan the Authority their equipment and increase their routes, and she stated that SeaStreak values their relationship with the Authority.

IT WAS VOTED -- upon Ms. Gladfelter’s motion, seconded by Mr. Hanover -- to approve the charter agreement reached with SeaStreak LLC for services provided from March 28 through April 5, 2018 at a total cost of $126,500, as recommended by management in Staff Summary #GM-700, dated April 18, 2018, and to express the Members’ appreciation to SeaStreak for their willingness to help the Authority out.


TOTAL 100 % 0 %

Port Council’s Report:

Mr. Balco then reported that, at their meeting earlier this month, the Port

Council had received updates from Mr. Davis regarding the Authority’s spare vessels and their availability, the completion of the Authority’s administrative office building, the Woods Hole terminal reconstruction project, and the M/V Martha’s Vineyard mid-life refurbishment project, with respect to which the staff


Page 22

is investigating what Senesco’s responsibility may be for the costs incurred by the Authority over the past few months. Mr. Balco also reported that the Port Council discussed the potential barging of municipal solid waste from Martha’s Vineyard and the New Bedford Port Authority’s five-year Strategic Plan, as well as the possibility of receiving some money from the settlement between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Volkswagen for new diesel engines and electric buses.

Mr. Balco noted that a Falmouth Selectman had attended the Port Council

meeting and had thanked the Authority for including Falmouth residents in the group of people to whom the Authority had sent its email updates.

Release to the Public of Portions of Executive Session Minutes:

After recounting how the Members had delegated to him, as the Authority’s

General Manager, their responsibility to approve appropriate portions of the minutes of the Members’ meetings in executive session for release to the public when the publication of such portions will no longer defeat the lawful purposes of the executive session, Mr. Davis stated that he had determined that all portions of the minutes of the Authority’s meetings in executive session through December 31, 2017 should be released to the public except for those portions of the minutes reflecting the Board’s discussions and actions regarding ongoing matters that are still appropriately the subject of executive session. As a result, Mr. Davis said, the additional portions of the minutes of the Authority’s meetings in executive session through December 31, 2017 that were being released to the public, subject to the above limitations, included those pertaining to:

(a) The Authority’s negotiations for new collective bargaining agreements and

amendments to its current collective bargaining agreements with Teamsters Union Local 59 governing the terms and conditions of employ-ment for the Authority’s licensed deck officers, security employees, unlicensed vessel employees, parking lot attendants and bus drivers, and the Authority’s negotiations for an amendment of its current collective bargaining agreement with SEIU Local 888 for the Authority’s Customer Service Department employees;

(b) The administrative appeal by 13 Falmouth residents of the Authority’s

draft Chapter 91 license for the Woods Hole terminal reconstruction project;

(c) The Authority’s potential litigation with Shoestring Properties, LLC;


Page 23

(d) The Authority’s renewal of a lease with Gary Wing, as Trustee of the Woodland Trust and G&B Realty Trust for property located at 1251 Route 28A, Cataumet, Massachusetts;

(e) The Authority’s potential acquisition of property owned by Gary E. Tratt,

M.D., located at 66 School Street, Hyannis, Massachusetts; (f) The Authority’s strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with

nonunion personnel; (g) The Authority’s potential acquisition of property owned by Joseph Arno

located at 31 Easy Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts; and (h) The Authority’s renewal of a lease with the Town of Oak Bluffs for the

waterside portion of Seaview Avenue, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.

Public Comment:

After thanking the Members for relocating their meeting today so that the island residents could participate, Tisbury Selectman Malinda F. Loberg stated that the Authority should review not only the maintenance and operation of its vessels, but also its selection of vessels as part of its assessment of “lessons learned” from this past month’s prolonged period of boat maintenance problems. Ms. Loberg suggested that the Authority should not have the kind of vessels which require parts to be procured from places so far away, or at least the Authority should train local people to take care of its vessels.

Ms. Loberg then stated that one lesson island residents learned is that

they really like the fast ferry and the idea of passengers being able to make a 20-minute journey. Although Ms. Loberg noted that her representative said that a fast ferry was too expensive, she suggested that the Authority consider acquiring its own small fast ferry like the one chartered from SeaStreak to use in the winter months when the Authority is sending its larger vessels out for repair.

After questioning whether it was really normal for the Authority to have

$2,000,000 of change orders during the regular maintenance of one of its vessels, Ms. Loberg observed that Vineyard Haven harbor suffers from the effects of the dockings of the Authority’s vessels and their prop dredging of sand underneath them that then spreads to the harbor’s adjacent mooring fields. Ms. Loberg stated that the Town has asked that this be addressed by the Authority because it impairs the harbor from its full utilization due to it being too shallow. In this


Page 24

regard, Ms. Loberg noted that the Authority had indicated it would have a survey done, but she stated that the situation was becoming an emergency.

After welcoming the Members to the Martha’s Vineyard’s premier port,

Dukes County Commissioner and Tisbury Selectman Tristan R. Israel stated that he wanted to echo Ms. Loberg’s comments about the need for dredging in Vineyard Haven harbor, and noted that the Town was spending a substantial amount of its embarkation fees toward dredging as well as for police services to direct traffic from the ferries. But Mr. Israel emphasized that the Town needs help from the Authority to do this, and he stated that he hoped the Authority’s help will go beyond the study. Mr. Israel also noted that this past month’s series of events showed how critical it is that there be communications between the Authority and the island’s emergency service people, who are really the front line when passengers are stranded.

Mr. Israel then observed that Tisbury transforms into a small city during

the summer time, and that it takes year-round resources to make that happen. Further, Mr. Israel said, the Authority is the lifeline for the Town’s seasonal population and it is really important not to make short shrift of that because everyone is depending on the Authority’s management to improve its operations. In this regard, Mr. Israel observed that, while he understand that stuff happens, this past month’s events caused more than inconveniences; they caused economic problems and people not getting to medical appointments, and he noted that the Authority also will see their effects on its bottom line.

Tisbury resident Mike Carroll stated that the Authority did a great job with

what it had to work with last month and that, while people are complaining, no one starved, no one ran out of heat or gasoline, and that says it all.

Martha’s Vineyard resident Tina Davies then stated that she used to

commute on the Authority’s ferries for 32 years and had never seen any kind of the problems like those that occurred this past winter, and she thanked the Authority for generally doing such a great job. However, Ms. Davies questioned the Authority’s communications, observing that she just found out about the Authority’s new Lifeline cards by reading about them at the end of a long article, and she noted that people were upset about no longer being able to share cards and having to have a separate card for each member of their family. Although Ms. Davies acknowledged that it might be too late, she asked if the Authority could reconsider those policies and suggested that the Authority find a better way to communicate when it is contemplating other changes such as this one. In this regard, Ms. Davies noted that the Authority’s communications was a big issue and that she had communicated with the Authority about this and had never received a response.


Page 25

Tisbury resident Jaime Hamlin similarly stated that there was a lack of

communication from the Authority, noting that while she called and has now started receiving the Authority’s alerts, she had been told that she could not have Mr. Hanover’s email address or telephone number and would have to write a letter to him. Ms. Hamlin then recounted how one night at the Woods Hole terminal no one ever came out of the office to tell any of the customers who were waiting in their cars that the boats would not be running that night, and she noted that the Authority’s website frequently says that all of the trips are on time when alerts already have gone out telling people that they have been cancelled.

Ms. Hamlin also recounted how her niece had waited on a bus in the

Palmer Avenue parking lot while the bus driver just sat there because he had the old schedule and, when the bus finally arrived at the Woods Hole terminal, the ferry already had left. In addition, Ms. Hamlin stated that, on March 3rd when hundreds of people were stranded at the Woods Hole terminal, AT&T was down and the Authority’s website had crashed, no one came out to tell anyone that the boats were not running and that they needed to get themselves hotel rooms. Ms. Hamlin stated that the Authority should have a list of hotels and a loudspeaker communications system at the terminals, and the communication that night was horrible. Ms. Hamlin also asked why the end of the M/V Woods Hole’s freight deck wasn’t enclosed, and she questioned whether it is suited to these waters and accessible for individuals with disabilities.

Tisbury resident Josh Goldstein stated that the Authority has a reputation

problem that has damaged the island for the foreseeable future, and that the Authority issues with both its reputation and technology need to be resolved and communicated. In addition, Mr. Goldstein said, the Authority needs to resolve its boat style issues over the long term as its vessels are taken out of service and replaced. Mr. Goldstein stated that, being in the hotel business, he sees when the Authority’s trips are cancelled, and that the frequency of those cancellations has increased dramatically. In this regard, Mr. Goldstein acknowledged that the Authority’s Captains are looking out for everyone’s safety and that he trusts them, and that the Authority cannot control the weather, but that the Authority’s prior ferries were able to run in worse conditions and had parts that were interchangeable. Accordingly, Mr. Goldstein suggested that the Authority buy vessels that are all the same so that their replacement parts are interchangeable among all of the boats.

Martha’s Vineyard resident Stephen Araujo stated that he had a tough

time agreeing with the Authority’s facts and figures, observing that he had lost twelve trips during those three weeks in March. Mr. Araujo also stated that there is no communication between the Authority’s offices and its employees, or the


Page 26

public, or the trucking companies and, as a result, people sit there for hours on end who are on the clock, costing everyone money. Mr. Araujo declared that there has to be a way for the Authority to communicate with its employees and customers, and that it has plenty of good workers both on the boats and at its terminals. After observing that he talks with the Authority’s employees every day and that the morale was dead, Mr. Araujo thanked Mr. Davis for stepping up and putting his face out there during those three weeks talking directly with the Authority’s customers.

Mr. Araujo also stated that it was not right to have trips delayed by even

15 minutes, as those delays result in people driving faster on Woods Hole Road because they don’t know when the boat is going to leave. Mr. Araujo observed that there were so many issues with the Authority that management did not have a clue about, and he encouraged them to talk to the Authority’s employees on the boats and at the terminals, as those employees want to see a face. In this regard, Mr. Araujo stated that management can sit behind their desks all day long, but they won’t know what the employees are feeling unless they talk with them. Finally, Mr. Araujo stated that he knows and respects management, but everyone has to do better and get this ball rolling again.

Another Martha’s Vineyard resident recounted an incident that happened

years ago when her daughter was at the Woods Hole terminal with her son who needed to have oxygen, saying that despite the fact that they only had a limited supply of oxygen with them, the terminal employees left them in line and didn’t get them on the next two ferries even though they had a reservation for the second one. She stated that island residents have put up with problems that happen to the Authority for years because they understand that it is a human system, but sometimes those problems are a matter of life and death. She also recounted an incident when she sat on the bus at the Palmer Avenue parking lot for 45 minutes, even though they are supposed to leave every 15 minutes, and as a result missed a freight boat trip and the following trip of a larger ferry as well, which she said was totally unreasonable.

The island resident further noted that she has been trying to sign up for

the Authority’s email and text alerts, but that she has yet to receive one, and that the Authority’s cancellations have cost people medical appointments, hotel bills, and the cost of parking in the Palmer Avenue parking lot when it is the Authority’s fault that they can’t travel. Observing that the Authority was in the customer service business, she noted that if the Authority were an airline, it would be paying for people’s hotel bills and giving them their meals. But she observed that the Authority doesn’t do any of those things, and that it does not take care of island people the way that island people are required to take care of the Authority.


Page 27

The island resident then recounted another incident where her daughter

showed up for the boat in Woods Hole, only to wait for 45 minutes while her trip was delayed. She stated that her daughter could have done something else during that time if only someone had communicated with her to let her know that the boats were running late.

The island resident also recounted when she showed up at the Vineyard

Haven terminal with two busloads of sports teams traveling off-island literally as the net was being pulled up at the transfer bridge even though she had called the Vineyard Haven terminal and had been assured that the boat would wait for them. She stated that the Authority is not customer friendly, does not think about the island residents as their lifeline, and does not give the island residents what it demands from them. For example, she said, although the Authority requires customers to arrive 30 minutes in advance, they may not always be on time if the Bourne Bridge is being worked on. She also recounted another occasion when she had not been allowed on the boat because she had not made the boat the previous day, which she stated was outrageous. She declared that she could not imagine treating anyone like she is frequently treated by the Authority.

The island resident also complained that the redesign of the M/V Martha’s

Vineyard does not honor the island way of living as a community, but instead has row after row of seats which prevent people from meeting each other. She stated that the Authority is not thinking about island people when it is making these major choices, and that she didn’t understand that. She stated that instead of making all of these decisions for the summer people, the Authority needs to consider the year-round residents.

Martha’s Vineyard resident Clarence (Trip) Barnes then stated that he had

come to praise the Authority, not to bury it. Mr. Barnes also observed that morale at the Authority was down and stated that he hoped the Authority would be able to handle whatever union problems arise as a result.

Ms. Davies then asked why the Authority always has its meetings during

the day, which results in those people who work during the day not being able to attend the meetings.

Martha’s Vineyard resident Nelson Sigelman observed that there has been

a lot of talk about fast ferry service between Woods Hole and Martha’s Vineyard, and he asked whether the Authority plans to take a look at providing that service in any examination of its future service model. In response, Mr. Davis stated that the possibility of providing fast ferry service was on the list of things that he


Page 28

will be investigating, particularly in light of the popularity of the service when it was provided last month.

Oak Bluffs resident Joseph Carter then suggested that the Authority ask

its own employees – including those responsible for the Authority’s maintenance and facilities – to provide their analysis of all of the extraordinary issues recently faced by the Authority and their proposed action plans and policies before jumping to an outside consultant. Mr. Carter also noted that the Authority had installed equipment on its vessels that is not needed, and he questioned why the Authority was spending precious funds on things that aren’t needed. Mr. Carter stated that unless the Authority’s management holds the Authority’s employees accountable in the same manner as the Members are holding management accountable, it will not get the in-house management assessment it needs to run the Authority.

Mr. Carter also stated that, with respect to hiring a consultant to provide

another level of expertise and an outside review, he did not know the procedures that the Authority will be following to engage that consultant, and that the public should know what procedures are being followed. In response, Mr. Hanover stated that the Authority’s General Manager has the authority to engage the services of a consultant without a competitive bidding process, but he also noted that the Members’ discussion that day was all preliminary, although something definitely needs to be done. Mr. Hanover also observed that the consultant will answer every question that Mr. Carter had just asked.

In response to a question from Dukes County Commissioner Leon

Brathwaithe, Mr. Davis stated that the Authority is replacing its “FerryPass” cards, from which multiple tickets could be used by different passengers on the same trip, with “Lifeline” cards, from which only one ticket is allowed to be used on the same trip, in order to comply with the passenger embarkation fee statute. Mr. Davis noted that, when the statute was enacted, the Authority’s policy was that only one ticket from each ticket book could be used on the same trip, and that several years later the Authority changed that policy to allow multiple tickets to be used from the same ticket book on the same trip. But Mr. Davis noted that, with information it has obtained through its new RFID card system, not only were island residents using more than one ticket on the same trip from their “FerryPass” cards, but also tourists who were traveling together and possibly making only one trip to the island, and that statute’s intent was that these people were exactly the ones who should be paying the embarkation fees. Accordingly, Mr. Davis said, after discussing this subject with the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, the Authority decided to go back to its original policy and issue the one-ticket-one-trip “Lifeline” cards instead of increasing the price of the multiple-tickets-per-trip “FerryPass” cards to include the passenger embarkation fees it


Page 29

would have to charge its customers to be able to use those cards. Mr. Davis also noted that the Authority decided to allow customers to fill those cards with tickets in increments of five instead of ten so that a couple would not have to spend any more money buying two 5-ticket “Lifeline” cards than they would have spent to buy one 10-ticket “FerryPass” card.

Mr. Brathwaite then asked whether the food concession stand in the

Woods Hole terminal building could stay open later than 4:00 p.m., especially since the Authority no longer has any vending machines at that terminal. In response, Mr. Davis stated that he would check with Centerplate to see if the stand can stay open later.

Martha’s Vineyard resident Fred Condon observed that the Authority has

the most wonderful people working for it who really do a great job and could not be nicer, and that if it were not for those people, the room would be overflowing today with people speaking a lot louder and with more hostility. Mr. Condon noted that things, including the Authority’s business, have changed and that he was not sure the Authority is keeping up with the times. Mr. Condon stated that the Authority’s technology for its customer service was pathetic and interferes with the quality of his life when, for example, he cannot change a reservation after a certain time because the Authority’s office is closed. Mr. Condon stated that the Authority really needs to have a consultant come in and review how the its systems work from the customers’ viewpoint, observing that when systems like the Authority’s systems are installed, it was typical to involve focus groups or to use another method to evaluate how they work.

Mr. Condon then recounted how, when he could not get the Authority’s

wifi on the boats, an Authority employee went with him and was surprised there was no internet service because he was sure there was. Thus, Mr. Condon said, the issue has to do as much with the Authority’s employees not having the information as it has to do with communication, and another issue has to do with the quality of the information communicated. For example, Mr. Condon stated that, after looking at the status of the standby line on the Authority’s website, he received different information when he called the terminal, and then when he arrived at the terminal he received different information from everyone he asked. Mr. Condon stated that the Authority needs to have information which is up-to-date and accurate and then it needs to communicate that information.

Mr. Condon also stated that he had concerns about the makeup of the

Authority’s Board, saying that he could not find their biographies anywhere and did not know their qualifications. In this regard, Mr. Condon noted that, just because the Members represent their respective communities does not mean that they are qualified business people and have the vision and experience to


Page 30

ensure the success of the Authority and run a $100,000,000 business. In addition, Mr. Condon said, he did not know what metrics the Authority uses to measure itself against other ferry operations, and could not find any of that type of information on the Authority’s website.

Mr. Condon also stated that his sense was that the Members are really

concerned about the pushback against raising prices, but that everyone now has priority pricing for their services and that the Authority similarly should take advantage of that type of pricing. Mr. Condon also expressed concern that, even though there are new ways of doing things in today’s world, he could not see any vision or action plan for the Authority, or even a five-or-ten-year plan. In this regard, Mr. Condon asked whether the Authority’s plan is simply to have more boats and more cars and trucks, which he said just clog up the island and make it less desirable. Accordingly, Mr. Condon suggested that the Authority reach out to the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, or have a sub-committee or the staff get together with interested people, because more traffic was not going to be good for the island.

With respect to the fast ferry, Mr. Condon stated that it was worth it to

him to pay extra money to save a half hour of his time, and that he would applaud the Authority if it were to take the possibility of providing fast ferry service seriously. Mr. Condon also stated that the Authority should prioritize all of the things that it has heard today, although he had a feeling that nothing is going to happen. Mr. Condon noted that he saw this moment as an opportunity, although he stated that while the Authority can do better and will do better, he was not sure how that will be accomplished.

After saying that this was the first Authority meeting he had ever attended

and that he had found it very interesting, seasonal island resident Quentin Walsh stated that he empathized with all of the complaints and the Members who have to deal with all of them. Mr. Walsh then encouraged all sides to work on these matters with good intent to reach a good result, and he wished everyone good luck because they were all going to need it.

Martha’s Vineyard resident Morgan Thornhill then stated that he had an

issue with the shuttle buses in the Palmer Avenue parking lot over President’s Day weekend. Specifically, Mr. Thornhill said, he and several other customers waited 45 minutes in the cold for a bus to pick them up and, as a result of his waiting there, he became ill. Mr. Thornhill also recounted how a person in a golf cart visited them several times and apologized for the long wait, but said that he did not know why the driver was not showing up.


Page 31

Mr. Jones stated that, while listening to the concerns of each person in the audience, he knew that the Authority services more than 3,000,000 people each year and that the thoughts and ideas of each and every one of them is important. Mr. Jones assured the audience that the Members were listening to them, that a common thread was communications, that he appreciated this meeting and thought the Members got a lot out of it, and that he knew management was going to try to address all of these issues. Mr. Jones also stated that he was sorry for the situation, but that he was certainly pleased that everyone had attended the meeting that day.

Ms. Gladfelter similarly stated that the audience had provided a lot of good

suggestions that day, and she noted that there was a way to offer suggestions on the Authority’s website. After Mr. Condon asked when the last time was that the Authority upgraded its website, Ms. Gladfelter stated that she did not have that information but that she had encountered the same issue that members of the audience had described that day, namely, the website reflecting something that wasn’t happening.

Then, at approximately 12:10 p.m., Mr. Ranney entertained a motion to go into executive session to discuss and approve the minutes of the Authority’s meeting in executive session on February 20, 2018, and to discuss the Authority’s strategy with respect to upcoming collective bargaining matters, including the Authority’s negotiations with SEIU Local 888 for a new collective bargaining agreement for the Authority’s Reservation Clerks and other Customer Service Department employees, because a public discussion of those matters may have a detrimental effect on the Authority’s bargaining position. Mr. Ranney also stated that the public disclosure of any more information with respect to these matters would compromise the purpose for which the executive session was being called. Finally, Mr. Ranney announced that the Members would not reconvene in public after the conclusion of the executive session.


Page 32

IT WAS VOTED -- upon Mr. Hanover’s motion, seconded by Ms. Gladfelter -- to go into executive session to discuss and approve the minutes of the Authority’s meeting in executive session on February 20, 2018, and to discuss the Authority’s strategy with respect to upcoming collective bargaining matters.


TOTAL 100 % 0 %

A TRUE RECORD ____________________________________ MARC N. HANOVER, Secretary


Page 33

Documents and Exhibits Used at the

April 23, 2018 Meeting in Public Session of the

Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority

1. April 23, 2018 Meeting Memorandum, dated April 18, 2018.

2. Video and Audio Recording Announcement.

3. Minutes of the March 20, 2018 Meeting in Public Session (draft).

4. Understanding of the Steamships Authority’s current situation.

5. Business Summary for the Month of February 2018.

6. Staff Summary #A-623, dated April 18, 2018 – Sales Volume for 10-Ride Passenger Ticket Books for High-Speed Service.

7. Staff Summary #E 2018-05, dated April 18, 2018 – Contract No. 03-2018, “Woods Hole Emergency Dolphin Repairs Slip #2.”

8. Staff Summary #GM-700, dated April 18, 2018 – Approval of Charter Agreement with SeaStreak LLC.

9. Staff Summary #GM-699, dated April 6, 2018 – Release to the Public of Portions of the Executive Session Minutes.

10. Minutes of the Port Council’s April 4, 2018 Meeting (draft).

11. Statement to be Read Prior to Going into Executive Session.

MINUTES

OF THE

WOODS HOLE, MARTHA'S VINEYARD

AND NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY


May 15, 2018

MINUTES

OF THE



May 15, 2018

The Members of the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority met this 15th day of May, 2018, beginning at 4:05 p.m., in the Martha’s Vineyard Performing Arts Center, located at 100 Edgartown – Vineyard Haven Road, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts. All five Members were present: Chairman Robert F. Ranney of Nantucket; Vice Chairman Robert R. Jones of Barnstable; Secretary Marc N. Hanover of Dukes County; Elizabeth H. Gladfelter of Falmouth; and Moira E. Tierney of New Bedford.

Port Council Chairman Robert V. Huss of Oak Bluffs and Port Council member George J. Balco of Tisbury were also present, as were the following members of management: General Manager Robert B. Davis; Treasurer/ Comptroller Gerard J. Murphy; Reservations and Community Relations Manager Gina L. Barboza; Director of Marketing Kimberlee McHugh; Vineyard Haven Terminal Manager Richard Clark; Operations Manager Mark K. Rozum; Director of Engineering and Maintenance Carl R. Walker; Oak Bluffs Terminal Manager Bridget Tobin; Woods Hole Terminal Reconstruction Project Manager William J. Cloutier; Director of Information Technologies Mary T. H. Claffey; General Counsel Designate Terence G. Kenneally; Director of Human Resources Phillip J. Parent; and General Counsel Steven M. Sayers.

After welcoming and thanking everyone in the audience for attending the

Authority’s meeting today, Mr. Ranney stated that he was pleased to be on Martha’s Vineyard once again.

Video and Audio Recordings of Today’s Meeting: Mr. Ranney then announced that All Media Productions was making a

video and audio recording of today’s meeting in public session for Martha’s Vineyard Community Television, also known as MVTV, and that he was sure there were other audio and video recordings made of the meeting as well.

May 15, 2018 Minutes of the Public Session

Page 2

Alternative Plans to Improve the Authority’s Operations:

Mr. Ranney stated that, because the Authority was hosting this meeting

on Martha’s Vineyard, he would like to invite Mr. Hanover, as the representative of the island’s residents, to make some initial comments. Mr. Hanover then thanked everyone in the audience for attending today’s meeting, observing that everybody in the room wants the same thing, and that everyone’s goal is to have reliable boats running efficiently, although some in the room may differ on how to get there. Mr. Hanover stated that this meetings was about the audience members’ future Authority and what they are willing to accept, noting that recently the Authority has had a lot of vessel breakdowns, as well as a lot more cancellations due to the weather, and he declared that this was unacceptable. Accordingly, Mr. Hanover said, that was why he was calling for a management consultant to come in and do a complete overview of the Authority.

Mr. Davis also thanked everyone in the audience for attending today’s

meeting, and then offered his sincere apologies for what has transpired these past couple of months with the Authority’s operations. Mr. Davis stated that, as the Authority’s General Manager, he is responsible for making sure of the services that everyone – the island residents, local merchants, commuters, shippers and island visitors – depend upon every day, and that it was embarrassing that the Authority was in this position and unable to provide that service during March and April.

Mr. Davis stated that the Authority was working on remedies to make sure

that its services are once again reliable for the summer and going into the fall and future, and that the Authority rebuilds the public’s trust in it. Mr. Davis further stated that the Authority is the economic engine for much of the businesses on the island and that it is the island residents’ lifeline, with people relying on it to be able to travel for medical services and family events, such as graduations. On behalf of all of those who work for the Authority, Mr. Davis said, what they want to do is provide for the island residents and visitors alike.

Public Comment: After Mr. Davis suggested that the Members now accept public comment

and receive input from those who have taken time out of their day to attend today’s meeting, Mr. Ranney asked to hear first from public officials before inviting others to speak, and he cautioned that, given the short amount of time


Page 3

the Authority had use of the room that day, people should attempt to keep their comments to the point so that everyone has a chance to have their say. Then in response to a request from a member of the audience, Mr. Ranney introduced all of the Members as well as Messrs. Davis and Sayers.

Josh Goldstein, saying that he was representing the Mansion House and a dozen other inns and hotels on the island, noted that while boat cancellations worry him for many reasons, including missed medical appointments, missed meetings, and being unable to get home to let his dog out, the fact is that every boat cancellation directly affects their bottom line and that it is no secret that tourism is the economic engine of Martha’s Vineyard. Mr. Goldstein also noted that Mansion House is in competition with other coastal communities to pay its bills, its mortgages and its 40 year-round wonderful employees. In this regard, Mr. Goldstein stated that the Authority provides that link to the Mansion House’s vendors, tradespeople and tourists, and that the Mansion House needs them all to stay in business.

Mr. Goldstein stated that something has gone terribly wrong this spring,

observing that in the past vessel trips were rarely cancelled due to weather and that the M/V Islander, the Authority’s crews and Bridget Tobin would get everyone home. While Mr. Goldstein acknowledged that from time to time there would be a nasty winter storm or an engine breakdown, they were nothing like the more than 500 trips that were lost this spring. In addition, Mr. Goldstein said, the island was about to start a season in which locals and tourists have lost faith in the Authority.

Mr. Goldstein declared that the problems facing the Authority were clearly

beyond the scope of an internal review, that time was running out, and that the public needed action and accountability. In this regard, Mr. Goldstein observed that Mr. Hanover was not alone in fielding calls from people who are planning to visit the island during the summer but are worried that they won’t be able to get here or back, and these people are reading all of the negative reviews and are now considering taking their vacation dollars elsewhere. Mr. Goldstein stated that the Boston Globe said it best in a headline, “Headed to Martha’s Vineyard? Good luck.”

Mr. Goldstein stated that the Authority needs to start a massive public

relations campaign to start restoring both its image and the island’s image, as tourists are freaked out by the Authority’s performance. Mr. Goldstein further stated that the Authority has to improve its communications and utilize technology, including emails, Facebook and Twitter, as they were part of people’s daily lives. Mr. Goldstein noted that sending out a trip cancellation an hour after the boat was supposed to leave doesn’t help anyone, and that fearmongering


Page 4

about a possible storm that is days’ away and may or may not cause disruptions also doesn’t help anyone.

Mr. Goldstein then noted that there must be solutions, but that only the

Members can make it happen. In this regard, Mr. Goldstein stated that island residents need vessels that run in rough seas because their plans and livelihoods depend upon it, and that they need boats that can get them to Massachusetts General Hospital in January and tourists here in the summer, and maybe even a fast ferry. For island residents, Mr. Goldstein said, the ride is not a pleasure cruise; rather it is their lifeline and they do not have the luxury of waiting patiently for the Members to bring back the reliable ferry service which their predecessors delivered for the last 50 years.

MacAleer Schilcher thanked the Members for coming today, saying that it

wasn’t easy, and that they did not want to meet with Martha’s Vineyard residents who made them come here. Mr. Schilcher also stated that the Members were accepting an unacceptable situation, and that the island residents, who are dependent upon the Authority for their lives, their groceries and their economy, are dying. Mr. Schilcher noted that he had just moved back to the island two months ago and that, since then, his life has been interrupted many, many times, with the most atrocious time being the one when he learned on the phone that a trip had been cancelled even though the Authority never notified anyone. Mr. Schilcher declared that the Authority’s communications are horrible and that it doesn’t understand the value of 20 minutes. Further, Mr. Schilcher said, as far as he could see the Authority was doing nothing and things will get worse.

Mr. Schilcher recounted how he started a Facebook group two months ago

and that, three weeks ago it only had 20 members. Now, Mr. Schilcher said, the Facebook group is called “Save Our Steamship Authority” and it has 1,200 members who have power because the Authority’s constituent communities are responsible for any deficit the Authority might incur. Mr. Schilcher declared that all of the Members and the Authority’s management should be scared because the Authority is a public service and they need to be accountable. Mr. Schilcher also observed that even though it is their jobs and they are public servants, he did not think the Members were going to have an independent review, so the public will have to petition the Massachusetts Attorney General for an independent investi-gation for criminal negligence. In addition, Mr. Schilcher said, the Authority’s management have shown that they cannot run their own boats, so how can the public trust them to do an independent investigation when they are going to be in charge of the investigation.


Page 5

Mr. Schilcher also declared that the Authority has not taken this situation

seriously, that boats don’t just stop in the water, that loading passengers via the freight deck is going to cause delays during the summer, and that he didn’t think the Authority was going to do anything. Mr. Schilcher also noted that the public was active and mobile and that the Members and the Authority’s management should all be very, very afraid because this is the island residents’ economy and lives. Mr. Schilcher stated that he would love to have an economic impact study, a fast ferry during July and August, and modern technology, asking why the Authority cannot use cameras and update its website to tell the public what is relevant.

Sue Hruby stated that, despite the public’s frustration, she wanted to acknowledge all of the people at the Authority for the work they have been doing to restore their service, and she stated that she knew everyone was sincerely committed to getting beyond where the Authority was before. But Ms. Hruby stated that the Authority needs to measure its performance and look at the break points so that when something does break it can find the root cause and eliminate it as a problem, and that she expects the Authority to find those root causes and eliminate them, whatever they are, including communications (which she said was huge), training or bad designs. But Ms. Hruby also cautioned that the Authority should not revert to blame when finding the source of an issue, and that this should be a fix-it exercise, not a witch hunt. In this regard, Ms. Hruby observed that all levels of the organization should be involved in fixing the problems, and that the people who work at the Authority know what the problems are and how best to fix them. But Ms. Hruby noted that sometimes those problems don’t get surfaced because they might reflect on the manager in charge, and that hiring a qualified outside firm may be essential to uncovering those problems and facilitating their resolution. Still, Ms. Hruby said, fixing the Authority’s problems has to be done with its employees, and the Authority has to involve the whole organization, as the employees know what the issues are and need experts to help them. While Ms. Hruby stated that McKinsey & Company may or may not be the right company for this role, it should not be hired without an exploration of other types of firms that could help the Authority address these issues. Ms. Hruby also stated that a team of Authority employees needs to see other ferry operations that are considered world class so that they can compare those operations with the Authority’s operations, and that the team should have a cross-section of employees, not just senior management. Ms. Hruby also noted that the Authority cannot forget the things that create customer satisfaction, like on-time performance, clean boats and good food, and that while some of those


Page 6

issues may seem minor in the scheme of things, they reflect how the Authority thinks about its customers.

Ebba Hierta then thanked all of the Authority’s employees because she has had the opportunity to deal with reservation clerks and terminal employees and they all have been completely professional even when they have been given baloney information from management, saying that she was deeply appreciative that they have done their best. Ms. Hierta then stated that the first thing that was critical for the Authority to address was to hire an outside consultant, as what happened was beyond the pale and the public has no confidence in the Authority’s ability. Ms. Hierta also noted that the Authority has a lot on its plate right now, including all of the construction, and hiring an outside consultant has to happen.

Ms. Hierta also recounted how she received a text today saying that work

on a dolphin will result in delays of the freight boats, but that the dolphin work resulted in delays of not only the freight boats, but of all of the boats, and that the Authority should have told the public that. Ms. Hierta observed that the Authority does not seem to understand that island residents run their lives by those schedules, they miss appointments, they miss connections, and that the Authority was posting baloney when it has a system of sending out text messages that seems to work but the Authority is not using it to give out accurate information and that was the problem.

Ms. Hierta also asked the Authority for restoration of the critical lifeline

functions that have been eroded for Martha’s Vineyard over the last five years, declaring that the island needs year-round standby just like Nantucket, and that island residents with medical conditions need to have priority traveling on the boats without their doctors being required to certify with their license numbers that their health will be in jeopardy if their travel is delayed. Ms. Hierta stated that island residents traveling to and from medical appointments are exhausted and sick, that they need to get home, and that the Authority should give them that.

Ms. Hierta also observed that the whole system of advance reservations for

islander profile holders has gone into the toilet, recounting how, when she had not been able to get an advance reservation when she wanted it, a reservation clerk had told her to show up at the terminal the day before she wanted to leave and get a preferred space reservation. But Ms. Hierta said that when she showed up at the terminal at 7:15 a.m. that day, she was told that all of those preferred space reservations had been cancelled for the next day, even though there was nothing on the Authority’s website. Ms. Hierta declared that if the Authority is going to cancel any of its services, it needs to tell the public. Ms. Hierta also


Page 7

asked the Authority to allow day-of-sailing reservation changes all days year-round, and to allow families to share the frequent traveler accounts, observing that Dukes County is one of the poorest in Massachusetts and not being able to share those accounts is a significant hardship.

In response to a request from the audience, Mr. Ranney noted that the Members had received a number of letters from island public officials asking that the Authority engage an independent consultant to conduct a review of its operations, and he stated that those letters were in the record. Binny Ravitch recounted how for years she has asked the Authority to change the online drop down choices for making reservations so that it doesn’t default to trips leaving from Woods Hole to Martha’s Vineyard and either defaults to a blank (requiring customers to make a conscious choice regarding what direction they want to travel) or allows customers to have a preference, and that the lack of even a response to her request from the Authority exemplifies the Authority’s problems with its customers and communications. Ms. Ravich also stated that, while the service this year has been reprehensible, she does not hold the Authority responsible for the weather, but that these problems are just the tip of the iceberg because in the future there will be more extreme weather conditions. Accordingly, Ms. Ravitch said, she hopes that the Authority will not build any more boats with enormous profiles that cannot run whenever there is a breeze. Peter Goodale described the financial impact that every trip cancellation has on his business, noting that he pays the driver who delivers cement to his facility $90 per hour. In this regard, Mr. Goodale recounted how he had a reservation for the driver at 7:30 a.m. one day but that the Authority’s reserva-tion office had switched him to a different trip because it was unlikely that 7:30 a.m. trip was going to run. Mr. Goodale stated that, while the 7:30 a.m. trip ended up running, the other trip did not, and the driver did not get over to the island until 1:15 p.m. and almost timed out on his hours before he was able to get back to Providence, Rhode Island that day.

Mr. Goodale stated that, while Ms. Ravitch may not blame the Authority for the weather, he blames the Authority for designing boats that can’t handle the weather, and he noted that the Authority ignored the Town of Tisbury’s by-law that requires double-ended ferries in Vineyard Haven Harbor. Mr. Goodale declared that the Authority has to take into consideration what the people on the island is telling it and what they have been telling the Authority for years.


Page 8

Fred Mascolo stated that in his 45 years of riding the boats he has seen some amazing things, like the Authority saving a person’s life by putting him on the boat. On the whole, Mr. Mascolo said, he thought the Authority does a great job and that it has run into a snafu, saying that he knows the Authority is under the gun because everyone depends upon it so much. But Mr. Mascolo recounted how, whenever he needed medical treatment, the Authority always got him on the boat, that when his mother broke her back, he was able to get back to her, and that the Authority’s employees work hard and care about the island. Mr. Mascolo stated that it was absolutely amazing how many people were at today’s meeting and that the Members were going to leave here with an understanding of how important the Authority is to everyone. Observing that everybody, including the Members, want better service, Mr. Mascolo stated that it would be a wonderful thing for the island to have guaranteed standby again so they will know that if they are in line by 2:00 p.m., they can get wherever they have to go. Mr. Mascolo also noted that the Authority’s boats are much more complicated now with computers and a lot more things to break, and that it is no longer like the old days with an engine, propellers and a steering station. Louie Degener stated that he had had an extended conversation with a boat line employee and, in the employee’s opinion, the Authority’s maintenance is on a crisis basis instead of on the previous preventative maintenance schedule, the chief engineers have made a series of bad decisions regarding engines, doors and maintenance in general, and accountants make shortsighted maintenance decisions based upon immediate costs instead of long-term economics and are overruling maritime command staff. After asking whether the Authority’s maintenance funds are being funneled into the new terminal, Mr. Degener stated that the public needs to put a microscope on the Authority and find out what is wrong internally. Stephen Powers stated that he thought the Authority’s problem was with management, and that he could not see why there can’t be contingency plans that react a lot more quickly when a boat breaks down, such as having another boat available. Mr. Powers also stated that he had an issue with Authority personnel when Authority employees switched cables on his wife’s car and caused serious damage to the vehicle. Mr. Powers stated that it took him 2-½ years to get resolution and that the Authority only responded after he filed a complaint in small claims court. Mr. Powers stated that he should not have had that happen to him, that if someone has a problem and has damages, it should be settled right away, and that it goes all the way to top management relating all of the way back to Governor Baker and problems with appointees who do not do their jobs.


Page 9

Adam Darack noted that, as a hockey dad with a son who goes to Falmouth Academy, he is on the Authority’s boats at least a couple of times per week and that a member of his family is on a boat every day. Mr. Darack stated that, while people are upset about what has happened, they just want to be in the know, whether it is good, bad or ugly, and that while there have been a lot of problems, communications is one of those issues. Mr. Darack asked the Authority not to be nervous and to just let the public know what is going on, as it will save them time going to ferries and a lot of planning. After saying that everyone cares and that he believes the Members get it, Mr. Darack asked when the Members will be addressing Mr. Hanover’s request for an independent review, as that was the reason everyone was there today and they needed to do whatever was necessary to make that happen. In response, Mr. Hanover stated that the Members will be addressing the study today, but that they wanted to hear from the public first and that after they hear from a few more people, the Members will be discussing it. Mr. Darack then stated that the Authority’s crews, from the Captains to the people who sweep the decks with mops, are fantastic. Paulette Silva-Souza then stated that she was there today to represent the Authority’s commuters on its 7:00 a.m. trip from Woods Hole, who signed a petition she gave them yesterday morning until she ran out of time. Ms. Silva-Souza stated that she has been commuting for eight years and will bring the Members more signatures, but in one morning on the 7:00 a.m. trip 208 people signed her petition who have been doing this daily out in that horrific weather with no shelter freezing to death while cars are loaded onto the ferry. Ms. Silva-Souza also showed the Members photographs of the commuters waiting in line outside that she had taken in March, saying that they have to wait because the Authority is their lifeline. Ms. Silva-Souza also asked why the people who were affected by the trip cancellations on May 5 received free rides and free food while the commuters have received nothing when they all have monthly commuter passes and what those other people went through does not compare to what the commuters have had to contend with, and that the commuters would like some kind of recognition. Ms. Silva-Souza stated that she hoped, when the Authority builds its new Woods Hole terminal, that all of the passengers waiting for the boat will have an overhead shelter or that the Authority will let them get on the boat before it loads the car onto the vessel. In addition, Ms. Silva-Souza recounted how she only received text messages about trip cancellations after boarding the shuttle bus at the Palmer Avenue parking lot and coming from West Yarmouth, although she stated that she did not have any complaints about the parking and that the Authority’s crews and deckhands have been fantastic. Ms. Silva-Souza stated


Page 10

that she did not think the Authority’s problems were going to get fixed and, while its employees on the boats have been very understanding, she prayed that they don’t have to deal with this when all of the tourists are here this summer. In response, Mr. Hanover apologized to Ms. Silva-Souza for her experience and assured her that it was going to change. Joy Robinson-Lynch stated that she looked at the Authority’s issues as being bigger than what happened this year, and that the public do not know what the Authority’s goals and objectives are. Ms. Robinson-Lynch noted that she had looked at the Authority’s Enabling Act, which states that its mission is to be a lifeline for the islands, but that the Authority’s website says that its mission includes everybody, including visitors, and that its mission seems to be to maximize its revenue and bring as many cars onto the island as possible. In this regard, Ms. Robinson-Lynch declared that the island cannot hold any more cars, and that the Authority should be part of regional transportation planning because island residents need to be able to get easily off-island and visitors need to be able to easily get here and enjoy the island. Ms. Robinson-Lynch then suggested that the Authority should make it really expensive for people to bring a car to the island but cheap to park on the mainland, and that the Authority should work with the Martha’s Vineyard Transit Authority to use some of its revenues to have small electric buses running every ten minutes so people can get around the island and enjoy it. Ms. Robinson-Lynch also observed that the Authority keeps referring to people as its customers, but that she thought the people it serves are the public and that there should be some way for the Authority to be accountable to the public and to work with their public officials so that it can play its appropriate role island life. Ms. Robinson-Lynch stated that the Authority’s problems came to a head this year because it has been trying to have more and more traffic to the island without careful planning, and she asked the Members to vote for an outside evaluation that will also look at the Authority’s mission and how the Authority operates within that mission and establishes its goals. Christina Caruso stated that she received a degree in marine engineering from Massachusetts Maritime Academy in 2012 and had shipped out for multiple companies for over four years, and that there was a need for more redundancy and planning on the design level that will help keep the vessels operational under any conditions. Ms. Caruso stated that the Authority should have a shipboard management system or should install an engine casualty drill program that includes a booklet with 25 or 30 worst-case scenarios and the locations where the crew should station themselves in those circumstances. Ms. Caruso noted that these systems help other companies and possibly could be introduced at the Authority.


Page 11

Ms. Caruso also suggested that the Authority have additional engineers on watch instead of relying on only a handful of people, observing that having an additional person’s experience could make a world of difference. Ms. Caruso also noted that the Authority is only thirty minutes away from a maritime college and should take advantage of that opportunity to funnel people with real maritime experience into the organization to help it do better. After saying the Authority’s three issues were communications, the outside review and restoring confidence, Todd Rebello observed that the Authority has had a pretty good track record of getting islanders back and forth over the years and that this winter was a pretty big pot hole that has caused a lot of frustration. Mr. Rebello also noted that the people in the audience today have expressed a lot of good thoughts about how the Authority can communicate and use social media. Mr. Rebello stated that the Authority needed to embrace social media and not fear it, that even though people write complaints, they will turn around and pat the Authority on the back, and that communication can really solve a lot of the Authority’s problems because the public will know what to expect. For example, Mr. Rebello said, if people want to travel on a given day, they need to know that even if one boat breaks down, the Authority has multiple boats and will get them to their destinations. Mr. Rebello also observed that he was sure management was not happy to be reviewed, but that is where the Members have to separate themselves from management and do what it expected of them and the responsible thing by demanding a comprehensive review. Mr. Rebello stated that he did not recall any time in the last 15 years when a senior Member was denied something like a comprehensive review. In addition, Mr. Rebello recounted how Mr. Hanover had voted last year to restrict trucks on the early morning boats out of respect and in consideration of Falmouth, and how Mr. Hanover had taken a lot of heat about that vote from a lot of businesses because it wasn’t the most popular vote. Mr. Rebello stated that he did not feel that consideration has been reciprocated and that he hoped the Members will vote for a comprehensive review. Mr. Rebello also stated that it is time to repair confidence in the Authority and its image, that he has confidence in the Authority and that the recent problems have been a blip, but he stated that the Members have to take a strong position.

Leon Brathwaite noted that one of the issues that had not been mentioned today but did come up at the last Authority meeting was the number of issues people had leaving the Authority’s Palmer Avenue parking lot and trying to catch the ferries, which he said was also a communication issue. Mr. Brathwaite then


Page 12

stated that he was speaking in support of Mr. Hanover’s position, and he observed that the Authority’s current boats are not like the M/V Islander, as they have a lot more technology and require people to have certain skills and training to be able to fix them and know what is going on with them while they are in operation. Although Mr. Brathwaite acknowledged that he did not know what training the Authority has given its employees, it has very complicated machinery that has been a problem, and that the Authority has to look at the reason why its boats have been breaking down so that it doesn’t happen again. Christine Todd observed that there were many public officials at the meeting today, that many of the islands’ boards, if not all of them, have written letters in support of Mr. Hanover’s request for an audit, and that this spoke volumes because they represent everyone who is there today as well as those on the island who are not there. Ms. Todd also noted that they all have spoken very loudly to support this audit, that it should be a question of “when,” not “if,” and that the Authority does not have to wait for a consultant’s report to know that it needs things fixed now and that there are short-term solution it can implement now.

Erik Hammarlund stated that he is an attorney who has been significantly impacted by all of the Authority’s policies and that he was shocked by the degree to which the Authority has implemented atrocious contingency planning compared to NSTAR. Mr. Hammarlund observed that the Authority is the island’s lifeline and that people cannot survive without it, that the public’s expectation is that the Authority will do what is necessary, work through the night, and make a contingency plan because there are people who rely on them to do that, and that so far that has not happened.

Mr. Hammarlund also noted that for the past few years the public has seen

a degradation of their ferry service, a cut-off of the 6:00 a.m. ferry, multiple ferries that have been problematic, a lack of contingency planning, and many of the things that have been raised for the last ten years. Mr. Hammarlund stated that the Members are public servants, their goal is to preserve this ferry line, and that is why they are here, and that if they are unable to do that then they should consider whether they are part of the solution or whether they should resign.

Robert Zeltzer stated that he was there today to speak in support of the letter from John Alley, Chair of the Dukes County Commissioners, asking the Authority to seek out a consultancy to take a look at what is going on at the Authority. Mr. Zeltzer stated that he was stunned to hear that the Authority has brought a communications expert on board, and that he would have been thrilled if he had heard that the Authority had brought on board an extremely competent


Page 13

and highly respected marine and electronics engineer. Mr. Zeltzer stated that he knew it isn’t as easy from the inside as it looks from the outside, but that the Authority needs to look at every aspect of its operations, its training, ongoing maintenance, scheduling, and even how it loads the boats. Mr. Zeltzer observed that there are only two reasons why an organization does not want to bring in a consultancy, either because they are so satisfied with what they are doing that they don’t want anyone to come in with new ideas or, even worse, because they are afraid that a report will reflect on the operations for which they were responsible before the consultancy came in. Mr. Zeltzer asked the Members to bring in a multi-faceted consultancy that can look into every aspect of the Authority’s operations and not to turn down Mr. Hanover’s proposal so that the Authority can fix its problems and get a good marine engineer on board. Angela Cywinski noted that she has a car in the Authority’s Palmer Avenue parking lot and that she has been told that the Authority is going to change its buses to a school-bus format that will have no place underneath to put the passengers’ luggage. Ms. Cywinski stated that this change will result in people banging their heads and squeezing down the aisle, and she asked the Members not to change to the school-bus format because the Authority’s passengers need the space to put their luggage underneath the bus. After also asking the Members to make sure that families can share their 10-ride FerryPass cards, Ms. Cywinski recounted how, two weeks ago, the Authority’s employees were kind enough to hold the last boat for her because they had forgotten her at the Palmer Avenue parking lot and she had sat there for 30 minutes waiting for the last bus to Woods Hole. Fred Condon declared that what really concerns him is that he just doesn’t get the feeling that the Authority is in touch with its customers or the public and that if it were not for the people on the front lines, who are very helpful, there would be a major mutiny here, observing that those employees calm the water more than the Members realize. Mr. Condon then noted that the Authority’s website needs updating, as it says that the Authority has operating revenues of $80,000,000 when they are now more than $100,000,000, and that its on-time performance record is nearly 100%. In this regard, Mr. Condon stated that even hiring a good Communications Director is not going to solve the Authority’s communication problem because the Authority still has to provide good information which is not available, and the new Communications Director is simply going to be sharing information that is erroneous.


Page 14

Mr. Condon then stated that he could not believe the Members are not going to approve Mr. Hanover’s request for an independent review, and that he felt the Members also should be reviewed. In this regard, Mr. Condon noted that boards typically have subcommittees that get into the issues and report back to the full board, that effective boards are more than rubber stamps and need to be in touch with what is going on and where their organization should be headed over the short- and long-term and how well it is performing. Mr. Condon also stated that the Members need well designed standing committees and a consultant to review their roles, and that the consultant is going to find that there need to be more Members and subcommittees so that the Members know what is going on. Peter Wharton stated that the two people missing from the table that day was the Authority’s Chief Engineer and its Communications Director, and that he was sure the Members were as distressed as the public when the Authority has 500 trip cancellations. Mr. Wharton observed that the Martha’s Vineyard Airport Commission similarly provides regular service for its customers and that the Commission has to make sure they have fuel. In this regard, Mr. Wharton noted that the majority of that fuel comes over in 88 trucks during the summer season and that, if those trucks don’t make it to the island, the airport’s planes can’t fly and the Authority’s impact on its customers cascade and become the Commission’s impact on the airport’s customers. John Freeman thanked the Members for taking the time to brave the hostile audience, saying that while he was sure they were expecting pitchforks and torches, the audience was required to check them at the lobby. Mr. Freeman then stated that, until this year, he has been very satisfied with the Authority’s service, and he realizes that there is weather and occasionally something happens to the boat. But Mr. Freeman also emphasized that there are personal costs whenever there is a boat cancellation and he described how his son’s trip to New York City to meet his recruiter was affected by the vessel breakdowns on May 5th.

Mr. Freeman noted that three of the four boats on the Martha’s Vineyard route have been breaking down recently and, with only one slip available, the Authority should have had a plan to deal with what would happen if the M/V Martha’s Vineyard were to break down again. Mr. Freeman stated that the Authority should have had a tug sitting by or the M/V Katama should have been moved to Fairhaven. Mr. Freeman observed that his son was just one person, but that there are all of these other people who believed in the Authority, that it would fix things, that it would take care of them, and that it would maintain the boats properly. Mr. Freeman also observed that the Authority was the public’s lifeline for individuals and that a lot of those individuals have strong concerns.


Page 15

John Christensen stated that, while he was all in favor of an outside audit, what was missing was safety management, starting with the high-speed ferry going at full speed up on the breakwater and the M/V Martha’s Vineyard being just seconds away from going aground. Mr. Christensen stated that he also has to be at work at 7:30 a.m. and passengers can’t float around Woods Hole waiting for a freight boat to get out of the way because the Authority has no plans. Mr. Christensen then stated that the Authority’s larger vessels may be able to run in the winter, but the Authority should build a model that can be run on a simulator so that the Captains can practice in a simulation instead of practicing with the real boats in high seas, which naturally pressures them to cancel trips because they are going to be the ones who will end up holding the bag. Further, Mr. Christensen said, when are the Captains going to find the time to provide the training for the rest of the crews, and his concern is that the crew on the M/V Martha’s Vineyard had to drop an anchor, which they had never done before, on a moment’s notice. Sean Debettencourt observed that the Authority has established itself as a legal monopoly and, as a result, has a moral obligation to be the lifeline it claims to be. Mr. Debettencourt also noted that he was on the fast ferry, and he said that it was amazing and drastically reduces the problems people have commuting. Tina Davies stated that, in the past, everyone always knew that the 6:00 a.m. trip of the M/V Martha’s Vineyard was going to run, and now look at what is going on mechanically with that vessel. Ms. Davies stated that the Authority should have boats that can run in the weather, and that its larger boats don’t seem to be built for the island’s kind of weather. Finally, Ms. Davies asked the Members to please consider having a fast ferry for Martha’s Vineyard. Stephen Araujo thanked all of the Authority’s crewmembers, ticket sellers and other employees who baled the Authority out of this mess, saying that at the last Authority meeting he had told the Members and management that they had no idea what was going on. Since then, Mr. Araujo said, he has seen many of their faces at Woods Hole and Vineyard Haven, and that as far as he was concerned the fiasco was behind him. But Mr. Araujo then complained about the Authority’s reservation system, saying that he had put in his reservation requests in January, that he was sick of being waitlisted and not getting reservations, that the Authority’s reservation and allocation system was horrible, and that he was tired of it. Mr. Araujo stated that everyone was talking about New Bedford but that, as a truck driver, the


Page 16

longer he is on the boat, the more it is going to cost every islander. Mr. Araujo suggested that, instead, a fast ferry take people who are coming up from New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island, which would take them off of the bridges and Woods Hole Road. Mr. Araujo also noted that he travels on the Authority probably around 300 to 350 times a year, and that he didn’t understand why someone else should be treated better than him, especially since he travels at most twice a day and the Authority’s shuttle buses are just as noisy as he is. Mr. Araujo also noted that he has been riding the Authority’s boats for 30 years and that the Authority has a lot of Captains and Pilots who are getting ready to retire or are just fed up. Mr. Araujo observed that these jobs used to be desirable, but now the employees just show up, and he asked what the Authority’s contingency plan is for losing three Captains and three Pilots over the next couple of years. Mr. Araujo also asked whether the Authority is going to rush people through the system and then have a fiasco when they get nervous. Mr. Araujo also stated that he wished there was more communication between the Members, management and the employees at the terminals, because the public asks questions and nobody has an answer. Mr. Araujo observed that there has to be communication and that somebody has to be accountable. After saying that she firmly believed the voices the Members were hearing today were also representative of a larger audience who could not be there, Lisa Reagan stated that she also believed competition is healthy and that the Authority should not have a monopoly on car and freight travel. Ms. Reagan then noted that $500,000 for an outside review is a ridiculously expensive amount of money, but that she was in favor of it because without it the public will not get good service. For example, Ms. Reagan said, the public can only make reservations on the Authority’s website if it uses certain browsers – Chrome, not Safari, and information about discounted rates, such as student rates, are not easily available or readily accessible on the website. Ms. Reagan declared that they should be prominently displayed to island residents and disseminated to particular targeted groups instead of being given out by word of mouth over the telephone by one of the Authority’s reservation clerks, which is how Ms. Reagan found out that she is entitled to extended excursion rates for her students in college. Finally, Ms. Reagan stated that it was wrong for the Authority not to honor the many excursion reservations that expired during those months when there were so many breakdowns. After saying that one good note from this past winter is that almost all island residents would like to have a fast ferry like Nantucket, Kathleen Cowley noted that islanders historically have been tolerant of the Authority’s mistakes, but that the number of problems this year has awakened a sleeping giant. In


Page 17

addition, Ms. Cowley said, when Mr. Hanover tried to fix the situation, the extreme arrogance was disturbing. Sheri Thomas stated that the Authority needs to have handicap accessible areas and noted, for example, that the M/V Island Home’s accessible restroom has only a very narrow space and should have a sign that says it is for handicap use only. In addition, Ms. Thomas said, the Authority’s shuttle buses should be handicap accessible with adjustable levels at the front so that the stairs can be lowered, as well as a wheelchair ramp to get a wheelchair on the bus. Brian Packish stated that he appreciated the Members being there today, and that his bigger concern is how the conversation about freight and trash is moving along quietly about moving them to New Bedford. Mr. Packish stated that freight is a different thing and that, when the Authority talks to the SMART group and its mainland state representative and senator, he wants it to look out for the island’s families and understand that freight is the food for these families, the medicine to care for them, the oil with which they heat their houses, and their lifeline, and that the Authority has to take that into serious consideration when it talks about considerably increasing the cost of island residents’ daily lives. Mr. Packish stated that, with respect to this debacle of cancelled boats, the Members have three easy decisions – they need a communications expert, a comprehensive review of all of the Authority’s operations, and a public relations person immediately. Mr. Packish then thanked Mr. Hanover for his leadership and stated that he hoped the Members will honor his leadership by doing these things immediately. Jean Rogers then recounted how she has missed doctor appointments this winter, had been forced to pay for hotel rooms three times, and had been forced to leave her car three times in the Palmer Avenue parking lot and go back to Falmouth to get it. In addition, Ms. Rogers said, she had to pay for hotels before her flights to make sure that she made them. Ms. Rogers observed that the Authority was the public’s lifeline, that the public needs it fixed, and that the Members needed to do whatever is necessary to accomplish that. Kevin Downs observed that the Authority’s boats have not been on time for months, and he asked Mr. Davis to fix the M/V Martha’s Vineyard, noting that it has had water leaking from its air conditioning system for the last four days and that the crews are using mop buckets to dump the water in the toilets. Mr. Downs also recounted how last year the Authority decided to kick all of the trucks over 34 feet out of Falmouth so that Falmouth residents can sleep in, and that he would rather be awake and on the boat.


Page 18

Ms. Thomas then recounted how she recently had taken the elevator on the M/V Island Home when it started shaking and scared the living daylights out of her, and she said that she hoped the Authority could have it fixed. Mr. Ranney thanked the audience for all of their comments and stated that the Members definitely had heard them. For himself, Mr. Ranney said, he was not only an Authority Member, but also a passenger, customer, island resident and someone who uses and relies on the boat. Mr. Ranney also stated that he understands what it means to have cancelled trips and to sit in the standby line and to not get the reservation he wants, so he was not sitting there today not caring about their concerns.

Alternative Plans to Improve the Authority’s Operations:

Mr. Davis noted that, at their April 23, 2018 meeting, the Members had asked the staff to come up with an alternative plan to Mr. Hanover’s request that the Authority engage McKinsey & Company to develop an improvement plan in accordance with its proposal, and that the staff had provided the Members with their proposed alternative plan. But Mr. Davis stated that the staff was open to whatever direction the Members would like to take and noted that, in their proposed alternative plan, the staff thought that there are certain areas of the Authority’s operations that can be addressed internally, while there are also areas where the Authority needs outside help. Mr. Davis stated that the staff has since discussed this with Mr. Hanover and that he would like the Authority to have a comprehensive outside review. Accordingly, Mr. Davis said, the staff has drafted a request for proposals (RFP) by which potential consultants would have until June 1st to submit their proposals so that they can be considered by the Members at their next monthly meeting. Mr. Davis stated that the RFP would thus allow a consultant to come on board and look at all of the areas of the Authority’s operations that the Members would like to be reviewed. Mr. Sayers then noted that the RFP that had been drafted for the Members’ review asks for proposals from consulting firms to look at the Authority’s management structure and its vessel maintenance and operations and, given that the Authority will be hiring a new Communications Director within the next week or so, the staff had planned to draft a second RFP with the Communications Director’s expertise to obtain a separate external evaluation of the Authority’s


Page 19

information technologies equipment. But Mr. Sayers stated, that based upon the public comments today, the staff could revise the RFP so that it is for an independent review of the Authority’s entire operations, while leaving consulting firms with the option of reviewing a subset of the operations, since the cost for a review of all of the Authority’s operations could be as high as $1,500,000 and the Members have to consider the cost of the proposals when evaluating which proposal is the one that is most advantageous to the Authority. Mr. Sayers also noted that everyone was in agreement that the Authority needs an outside independent review, and that last month Mr. Davis had proposed having one for the Authority’s vessel maintenance operations; and he stated that given the public comments today the staff was recognizing that the Authority needs outside help with respect to its entire operations. Accordingly, Mr. Sayers suggested that the Members allow the staff to work with Mr. Hanover to prepare a revised RFP and to issue it as soon as possible while still allowing enough time to receive competitive proposals. Mr. Sayers stated that possibly Mr. Hanover could also be involved with the evaluation of the proposals, as the goal was to award a contract that meets the island’s needs as well as the Authority’s needs. After again thanking everyone in the audience for being here today, which he observed has shown how important a matter this is to the island, Mr. Hanover noted that he has been working with Messrs. Davis and Sayers over the past few days and knew what he needs and what he wants, namely, a complete review of the entire Authority, including its operational discipline, information technol-ogies, public communications, management structure and fleet maintenance, and that was his motion. Mr. Hanover also clarified his motion, in response to a question from Ms. Tierney, to state that an RFP should be issued for that review, which Mr. Sayers observed was consistent with the Massachusetts Inspector General’s recommended practices. Mr. Sayers then noted that, based upon Mr. Hanover’s motion, the staff would be instructed to work together with him and issue an RFP by the end of that week for an outside and independent consulting firm to perform a review of the Authority’s operations, including its information technology systems, public communications and management structure, and strengthening its fleet operations and maintenance strategies. Mr. Sayers also noted that the staff may come back with an RFP that asks for one comprehensive price or for separate prices with respect to each aspect of that review so that the Members can then structure an engagement that includes those areas where the Authority needs the most help for the best price. In addition, Mr. Sayers said, Mr. Hanover will assist the staff in evaluating the proposals and they would then be presented to the Members for their consideration at their next meeting.


Page 20

Ms. Gladfelter noted that the Members have established committees in the past and she suggested that the Members have a committee for the purpose of this RFP as well. The other Members agreed with Ms. Gladfelter’s suggestion, and Ms. Tierney volunteered to serve on the committee with Mr. Hanover. In this regard, Mr. Sayers noted that the committee, as the Members themselves, would be subject to the Open Meeting Law and its meetings would have to be posted in compliance with the law and held in public session. Mr. Jones then recounted how he was one of the Members who had not gone along with Mr. Hanover’s suggestion last month and that one of the reasons for his opposition was that the proposal was pretty much put on the back of a napkin and he didn’t know anything about the firm to which the Members were being asked to pay $500,000. Mr. Jones stated that he has since looked up the firm and discovered that, according to Wikipedia, it is a highly advantageous one that has been around for a long time and whose prices are 25% higher than other consulting firms. Mr. Jones stated that if he does not know what he is voting on, then he is not going to vote on it, and $500,000 was too much money to spend on a firm he knew nothing about. But Mr. Jones noted that he was now more than happy to have the Authority issue an RFP that includes as many elements of the Authority’s operations as the Members see fit, observing that the Authority will be seeking competitive proposals and will not be required to accept the lowest proposal, but rather will be able to take the best proposal.

Mr. Jones also observed that everyone is obviously completely frustrated and that the last two months have seen the perfect storm, and that even drawing on his experience in the boat business and his good working knowledge of that end of the equation, he could not imagine how many things could have gone wrong with the M/V Martha’s Vineyard. But Mr. Jones stated that, putting things in perspective, the boat has operated 96,000 trips since 1993, the M/V Woods Hole had a flawless record before the problems arose with its check valves, and the M/V Katama had a problem with a generator that is 40 years old. In this regard, Mr. Jones stated that the Authority does not take any of these matters lightly because they are important to the public and the Authority alike.

IT WAS VOTED -- upon Mr. Hanover’s motion as amended, seconded by Ms. Tierney -- to instruct the staff to work with the Dukes County Member to develop and issue a request for proposals by May 18, 2018 soliciting proposals from management consulting firms for an independent review and evaluation of (and to make recommended performance


Page 21

plans for) all aspects of the Authority’s operations, includ-ing its information technologies, public communications and management structure, and to strengthen its fleet and maintenance strategies, and to have the proposals evalu-ated by the General Manager and a committee consisting of the Dukes County and New Bedford Members so that a recommendation can be presented to the Members for their consideration at their next monthly meeting.


TOTAL 100 % 0 %

Then, at approximately 6:03 p.m., Mr. Ranney entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting in public session.

IT WAS VOTED -- upon Mr. Hanover’s motion, seconded by Ms. Tierney -- to adjourn the meeting in public session.


TOTAL 100 % 0 %

A TRUE RECORD ____________________________________ MARC N. HANOVER, Secretary


Page 22

Documents and Exhibits Used at the

May 15, 2018 Meeting in Public Session of the

Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority

1. May 15, 2018 Meeting Memorandum, dated May 11, 2018.

2. Video and Audio Recording Announcement.

3. Staff Summary #GM-701, dated May 7, 2018 – The Staff’s Alternative Plan to Improve the Authority’s Operations.

4. Letter from State Representative Dylan Fernandes and State Senator Julian Cyr to Authority General Manager Robert Davis, dated May 9, 2018.

5. Letter from the Oak Bluffs Board of Selectmen to the Authority Members, dated May 9, 2018.

6. Letter from the County of Dukes County to Authority Chairman Robert Ranney, dated May 11, 2018.

7. Letter from the Edgartown Board of Selectmen to the Authority Members, dated May 14, 2018.

8. Request for Proposals for Consulting Services regarding the Authority’s Management Structure and Vessel Maintenance and Operations, Contract No. 06-2018 (May 14, 2018 draft).

DRAFT AGENDA ITEM # 2 a

Part I - Traffic Statistics

% Change % ChangeAmount vs. Prev. Yr. Amount vs. Prev. Yr.

Number of Passengers CarriedMartha's Vineyard (12,502) 145,366 -7.9% (28,918) 431,362 -6.3%Nantucket

Regular (385) 16,970 -2.2% 3,228 56,806 6.0%Fast Ferry (2,233) 21,684 -9.3% (3,664) 21,684 -14.5%

Subtotal - Nantucket (2,618) 38,654 -6.3% (436) 78,490 -0.6%Total (15,120) 184,020 -7.6% (29,354) 509,852 -5.4%

Number of Automobiles CarriedMartha's Vineyard

Regular (1,943) 13,810 -12.3% (3,732) 36,727 -9.2%Excursion (531) 14,063 -3.6% (2,908) 48,239 -5.7%

Subtotal - M. Vineyard (2,474) 27,873 -8.2% (6,640) 84,966 -7.2%

NantucketRegular 64 2,090 3.2% 116 4,655 2.6%Excursion (56) 1,850 -2.9% (185) 6,783 -2.7%

Subtotal - Nantucket 8 3,940 0.2% (69) 11,438 -0.6%Total (2,466) 31,813 -7.2% (6,709) 96,404 -6.5%

Number of Trucks CarriedMartha's Vineyard

Less than 20' - Regular (314) 4,021 -7.2% (598) 12,261 -4.7%Less than 20' - Excursion (138) 3,489 -3.8% (944) 11,835 -7.4%20' and over 94 4,415 2.2% (61) 14,268 -0.4%

sub-total - M.Vineyard (358) 11,925 -2.9% (1,603) 38,364 -4.0%Nantucket

Less than 20' - Regular 106 1,068 11.0% 67 3,237 2.1%Less than 20' - Excursion (23) 836 -2.7% (263) 2,829 -8.5%20' and over 7 3,018 0.2% 127 9,256 1.4%

sub-total - Nantucket 90 4,922 1.9% (69) 15,322 -0.4%Total (268) 16,847 -1.6% (1,672) 53,686 -3.0%

Number of Cars ParkedWoods Hole, Falmouth and Cataumet 7,158 -6.0% (615) 17,997 -3.3%Hyannis, Nantucket (455) 2,144 -5.6% 50 3,589 1.4%

Total (128) 9,302 -5.9% (565) 21,586 -2.6%

(583)

Average Length of Stay - Cars Parked (Days)

Woods Hole, Falmouth and Cataumet 1.80 -0.7% (0.02) 1.78 -0.9%Hyannis, Nantucket (0.01) 2.34 1.1% 0.03 2.62 1.3%

Total 0.03 1.92 -0.2% (0.00) 1.92 -0.2%

(0.00)

Average Revenue per Passenger *Martha's Vineyard 6.93$ 0.9% 6.88$ 0.3%Nantucket 22.17 -3.9% 19.66 -4.2%

Total 10.13$ -1.0% 8.85$ -0.1%

Average Revenue per AutomobileMartha's Vineyard 41.61$ -3.1% 31.66$ -1.7%Nantucket 126.45 1.1% 94.57 1.1%

Total 52.12$ -0.4% 39.13$ 0.2%

Average Revenue per TruckMartha's Vineyard 99.97$ 3.7% 94.82$ 3.6%Nantucket 283.23 0.8% 270.14 2.7%

Total 153.51$ 3.4% 144.86$ 4.1%

* Excludes any town embarkation fees.

Business Summary for the Month of April 2018

April, 2018 Year to Date

Page 1

DRAFT

DRAFT

Part II - Net Income (Loss) from Operations

Variance VarianceAmount vs. Budget Amount vs. Budget

Vs. 2018 Operating Budget Increase/(Decrease) Increase/(Decrease)

Net Income (Loss) from OperationsOperating Revenues 6,856,383$ (271,532)$ 18,066,577$ (711,594)$ Other Income 174,739 14,205 638,722 39,336

Total Income 7,031,122 (257,327) 18,705,299 (672,258)

Operating Expenses 8,366,298 161,193 31,750,412 1,862,635 Fixed Charges and Other Expenses 230,223 (49,785) 969,470 (204,396)

Total Expenses 8,596,521 111,408 32,719,882 1,658,239

Net Operating Income (Loss) (1,565,399)$ (368,735)$ (14,014,583)$ (2,330,497)$

Operating Revenues:Auto Revenue 1,656,253$ (163,776)$ 3,751,456$ (409,813)$ Freight Revenue 2,584,852 34,081 7,764,717 46,713 Passenger Revenue 1,935,567 (176,079) 4,710,602 (234,169) Bicycle, Mail, Misc. Voyage Rev. 80,342 (5,277) 244,546 (37,155) Revenue from Terminal Operations 252,689 19,589 812,276 (33,149) Parking Revenue 286,080 830 571,923 (577) Rents 60,600 19,100 211,057 (43,444)

Sub-Total - Operating Revenue 6,856,383 (271,532) 18,066,577 (711,594) Other Income:

Interest Income 10,637 6,537 34,139 20,489 Miscellaneous Income 164,102 7,668 604,583 18,847

Sub-Total - Other Income 174,739 14,205 638,722 39,336

Total Income 7,031,122$ (257,327)$ 18,705,299$ (672,258)$

Operating Expenses:Wages 2,880,335$ 112,217$ 10,266,382$ 401,099$ Pensions Health & Welfare 1,203,312 (32,104) 4,980,628 231,887 Payroll Taxes 192,977 5,436 693,342 9,092 Depreciation 974,097 (18,706) 3,601,185 (198,947) Vessel Fuel Oil 523,723 (52,365) 1,390,500 (185,550) Insurance 299,922 (2,788) 1,201,069 (9,771) Direct Vessel Maintenance(Excld. Wages) 1,022,424 244,774 4,591,455 817,155 Direct Terminal Maintenance(Excld. Wages) 53,126 (214,374) 509,426 (5,974) Utilities 102,572 7,036 473,447 105,308 Other 1,113,810 112,067 4,042,978 698,336

Sub-Total - Operating Expenses 8,366,298 161,193 31,750,412 1,862,635

Fixed Charges and Other Expenses: Bond Interest & Expense 187,006 (49,277) 795,571 (202,613) Misc. Charges or Deductions 43,217 (508) 173,899 (1,783)

Sub-Total - Other Expenses 230,223 (49,785) 969,470 (204,396)

Total Expenses 8,596,521 111,408 32,719,882 1,658,239

Net Operating Income (Loss) (1,565,399)$ (368,735)$ (14,014,583)$ (2,330,497)$


Business Summary for the Month of April, 2018 (Continued)

Page 2

DRAFT Management Discussion and Analysis - April, 2018 DRAFT

Management Discussion and Analysis: January - April, 2018 (Year to Date)

Other income, including interest income, debt premium and license income, totaled $174,739 and was $14,205 higher than budget projections. Income deductions, including interest on funded debt and pension withdrawal, totaled $230,223 and were $49,785 lower than budget. The Authority's net operating loss for the month of April, including other income, income deductions and bond interest expense, was $1,565,399 or $368,735 higher than budget projections for the month.

Total operating revenues for April decreased by $271,532 or 3.8% versus the amount projected in the 2018 operating budget, for a total of $6,856,383 in operating revenues. Passenger revenues for the month were down $176,000 versus budget projections, which represents a decrease of 8.3%. Automobile revenues were down $164,000, or 9.0%, versus budget projections for April. Freight revenues were up $34,000, or 1.3%, versus budget projections for the month. Parking revenues were up during April by $1,000, or 0.3%. Concession revenues in April were up $4,000 or 8.3%. Rent revenues from barge unloading and rental car space were up $19,000, or 46.0%, in April versus budget.

Total operating expenses for the month were up $161,193, or 2.0%, versus the amount projected in the 2018 budget for a total of $8,366,298. Maintenance expenses for the month were up $247,000, or 14.6%, versus budget. M/V Martha's Vineyard overhaul expense was up $76,000 and M/V Island Home drydock was up $514,000. These increases were partially offset by decreases in drydock expense for the M/V Iyanough of $150,000 and M/V Governor of $30,000 and in overhaul expense for the M/V Woods Hole of $57,000.

During April, the vessels made a combined 1,842 trips. This represents a decrease of 40 trips, or 2.1%, versus budget for the month. On the Vineyard route, 80 trips were canceled for mechanical reasons, 0 for weather related and 49 for traffic demands while 131 unscheduled trips were added. On the Nantucket route, 0 trips were canceled for mechanical reasons, 42 for weather related and 22 for traffic demands while 22 unscheduled trips were added.

Year to date total operating revenues decreased by $711,594 or 3.8% versus the amount projected in the 2018 operating budget, for a total of $18,066,577 in operating revenues. Passenger revenues for the year were down $234,000 versus budget projections, which represents a 4.7% decrease. Automobile revenues were down $410,000, or 9.9%, versus budget projections. Freight revenues were up $47,000 or 0.6%, versus budget projections. Parking revenues were down $1,000, or 0.1%, compared to budget forecast. Rent revenues from barge unloading and rental car space were down $43,000, or 17.1%, versus budget.

Year to date operating expenses were up $1,862,635 or 6.2%, versus the amount projected in the 2017 budget for a total of $31,750,412. Maintenance expenses for the year are up $1,504,000, or 22.4%, versus budget. Dry-dock repairs for the M/V Martha's Vineyard were up $318,000, for the M/V Island Home were up $824,000, for the M/V Governor were up $74,000. Engine parts and overhaul expenses for the M/V Woods Hole were up $160,000. Dolphin and dock repairs at the Woods Hole terminal are up $188,000; dolphin and dock repairs at the Vineyard Haven terminal are up $67,000; Oak Bluffs dock repairs were up $103,000.

Year to date, the vessels made a combined 5,632 trips. This represents a decrease of 444 trips, or 7.3%, versus budget. On the Vineyard route, 549 trips were canceled for mechanical reasons, 219 for weather related and 102 for traffic demands, while 579 unscheduled trips were added. On the Nantucket route, 2 trips were canceled for mechanical reasons, 189 for weather related and 29 for traffic demands, while 67 unscheduled trips were added.

Vessel fuel expense of $1,391,000 was $186,000, or 11.8%, below budget estimates. The average actual cost per gallon for vessel fuel oil was $1.990 including net hedging costs, while the budgeted cost was $2.133 per gallon. 77,000 vessel miles have been logged through April, a decrease of 7,000 miles, or 8.3%, versus budget. 684,000 gallons of vessel fuel were consumed. This represents a decrease of 55,000 gallons or 7.4% versus budget. General administrative expenses for the year were up 5.7%, or $420,000. Legal expense was down $33,000, pension expense was up $191,000, health care costs were down $11,000, unemployment contributions were up $70,000, and disability contributions were down $17,000. Training expense was up $84,000; while credit card fees were up $11,000, and telephone expense was up $84,000.

Vessel fuel expense of $524,000 was $52,000 below budget estimates. The average actual cost per gallon for vessel fuel oil in April was $1.926, including net hedging costs, while the budgeted cost was $2.108 per gallon. During April, the vessels logged 28,640 miles, which were 1,200 miles lower than budget, or a decrease of 4.2%. During April, 256,759 gallons of vessel fuel were consumed. This represents a decrease of 16,000 gallons, or 6.0%, versus budget. General administrative expenses for the month were up $73,000 or 4.0%. Legal expense was down $7,000; pension expense was up $39,000, health care expense was down $51,000, disability contributions were down $33,000, unemployment contributions were up $13,000, training expense was up $58,000, credit card fees were down $13,000, and telephone expense was up $32,000.

Other income, including interest income, debt premium and license income, totaled $638,722 and was $39,336 higher than budget projections. Income deductions, including interest on funded debt and pension withdrawal, totaled $969,470 and were $204,396 lower than budget. Year to date, the Authority's net operating loss, including other income, income deductions and bond interest expense, was $14,014,583 or $2,330,497 higher than budget projections.

Page 3

DRAFT Part III - Cash Balances


Positive / (Negative) Positive / (Negative)Cash Balance - Operations Fund

Beginning Balance 12,168,409$ (3,506,572)$ 14,554,314$ 1,554,314$ Cash Receipts 8,701,989 180,563 33,915,273 750,016 Cash Receipts - Grants - - 242,983 242,983 Cash Receipts - Capital Projects - - 2,000 2,000 Cash Disbursements (6,833,093) 1,331,548 (26,164,541) (437,914) Cash Disbursements - Capital Projects (3,144,223) (3,144,223) (6,279,287) (6,279,287) Transfers to Special Purpose Funds - - (5,377,660) (970,796)

Ending Balance 10,893,082$ (5,138,684)$ 10,893,082$ (5,138,684)$

16,031,766 16,031,766 Cash Balance - Special Purpose Funds

Sinking FundBeginning Balance 1,461,727$ (2,980,937)$ 8,510,755$ 1,261,755$

Transfers from Revenue Fund 3,977,088 3,977,088 5,377,660 970,796 Income from Investments 8,567 5,817 32,292 13,242 Accrued Interest Received - - - - Debt Service Payments - - (8,473,325) (1,243,825)

Ending Balance 5,447,382$ 1,001,968$ 5,447,382$ 1,001,968$

4,445,414 5,447,381.90 Replacement Fund

Beginning Balance 7,821,705$ (4,031,795)$ 9,683,515$ (7,291,485)$ Transfers from Revenue Fund (3,977,088) (3,977,088) - - Transfers from Bond Redemption - - - - Proceeds from Disposal of Property - - - - Income from Investments 6,407 (943) 38,107 2,257 Withdrawals - 1,900,000 (5,870,598) 1,179,402

Ending Balance 3,851,024$ (6,109,826)$ 3,851,024$ (6,109,826)$

9,960,850 3,851,024.43 Reserve Fund

Beginning Balance 3,577,198$ 255,448$ 3,562,986$ 247,486$ Transfers from Revenue Fund - - - - Income from Investments 5,770 3,720 19,982 11,682 Transfers to Bond Redemption Acct. - - - -

Ending Balance 3,582,968$ 259,168$ 3,582,968$ 259,168$

3,323,800 3,582,968.22 Bond Redemption Account

Beginning Balance 14,752,507$ 230,657$ 14,693,895$ 198,895$ Transfers from Revenue Fund - - - - Transfers from Reserve Fund - - - - Transfers to Replacement Fund - - - - Income from Investments 23,797 14,797 82,409 46,559

Ending Balance 14,776,304$ 245,454$ 14,776,304$ 245,454$

14,530,850 14,776,304.28 Capital Improvement Fund

Beginning Balance 499,427$ (178,623)$ 2,360,790$ 955,790$ From Bond/Note Issue - - - - Income from Investments 806 606 5,879 5,129 Withdrawals - 242,500 (1,866,436) (896,436)

Ending Balance 500,233$ 64,483$ 500,233$ 64,483$

435,750 500,232.84 435,750 ** Cash Disbursements from the Operations Fund in December, 2008 include $1,908,556 in expenditures for

Capital projects. Reimbursement for these expenditure was made from the Capital Improvement Accountin December, 2008 and are reflected in the Operations Fund Cash Receipts for December.


Page 4

DRAFT

Part IV - Cash Transfers to Special Purpose Funds for 2018

2018 2018Budget Estimate

ActualCash Transfers from Revenue Fund:

To Sinking Fund (for current debt service requirements) 10,043,400$ 10,043,400$ To Replacement Fund (2017 max. transfers - $10,078,794) 9,417,387 4,995,931 To Reserve Fund (106,850) (106,850) To Bond Redemption Account 106,850 106,850

Total Transfers to Special Purpose Funds 19,460,787$ 15,039,331$

* Current estimate is based on the actual cash balance as of 4/30/2018 plus projected cash receipts and disbursements forthe remainder of the year, per the 2018 Operating Budget.

Part V - Allocation of Net Operating Income by Route for 2018

Allocation of Net Operating Income by Route for 2018

Martha's Vineyard Nantucket Total

Operating Revenues 59,306,089$ 45,791,214$ 105,097,303$ Other Non-Service Income - Net 812,279 1,931,265 2,743,544

Total Income 60,118,368$ 47,722,479$ 107,840,847$

% Distribution by Route 55.7% 44.3% 100.0%

Cost of Service 62,680,344$ 40,286,241$ 102,966,585$


Net Operating Income by Route for 2018 (2,561,976)$ 7,436,238$ 4,874,262$

% Distribution by Route -52.6% 152.6% 100.0%2017 BUDGET $370,280 $6,834,477 7,204,757$

5.1% 94.9% (2,330,495)$ (2)$

* Based on actual net operating income (loss) for the first 4 month plus 8 months of projected net operating income (loss) for the remainder of the year, per the 2018 Operating Budget

Business Summary for the Month of April, 2018 (Continued)

Page 5

DRAFT Part VI - Share of Market versus Licensed Ferry Services

Number of Passengers Carried Amount Amount

Martha's Vineyard

Steamship Authority 145,366 (12,502) -7.9% 431,362 (28,918) -6.3%

Hy-LineRegular 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%High Speed 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Subtotal Hy-Line 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Falmouth Ferry Service 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

SeaStreak (New Bedford) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

SeaStreak (New York City) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Total * 145,366 (12,502) -7.9% 431,362 (28,918) -6.3%

Nantucket

Steamship Authority

Regular 16,970 (385) -2.2% 56,806 3,228 6.0%Fast Ferry (Prior to April 1) 0 0 0.0% 0 (1,431) -100.0%Fast Ferry (April 1) (in service 2017) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%Fast Ferry (April 2 and after)(in service 2018) 21,684 (2,233) -9.3% 21,684 (2,233) -9.3%

Subtotal - Nantucket 38,654 (2,618) -6.3% 78,490 (436) -0.6%

Hy-LineRegular 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%HighSpeed (Prior to April 1) 0 0 0.0% 89,333 (5,216) -5.5%HighSpeed (April 1)(IYA in service 2017) 1,442 1,442 100.0% 1,442 1,442 100.0%HighSpeed (April 2 & after)(IYA in service 2018) 37,900 1,143 3.1% 37,900 1,143 3.1%

Subtotal Hy-Line 39,342 2,585 7.0% 128,675 (2,631) -2.0%

Freedom Cruise Line (Harwich) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%



Total 77,996 (33) 0.0% 207,165 (3,067) -1.5%

M/V Iyanough in service 04/01/2017 - 12/30/17 and 04/02/2018 - 01/02/2019.* Note: Island Queen passenger service is grandfathered and as such traffic counts are not included .

Change ChangeAmount vs. Prev. Yr. Amount vs. Prev. Yr.

License Fee Income 63,841 3,291$ 207,537$ (4,629)$


Weather Observations #Average Maximum Temperature (Fahrenheit) 43.6 1.5 14.6 -44.3Total Precipitation (in water equivalent inches) 5.72 3.78 19.82 5.74Number of Days with Measurable Precipitation 10 0 50 5

# Based on NOAA, National Climatic Data Center unedited climatological data for Barnstable Airport in Hyannis

April, 2018 Year to DateChange

vs. Prev. Yr.Change

vs. Prev. Yr.

Year to Date


April, 2018

Page 6

DRAFT AGENDA ITEM # 2 a

Part I - Traffic Statistics

% Change % ChangeAmount vs. Prev. Yr. Amount vs. Prev. Yr.

Number of Passengers CarriedMartha's Vineyard (14,655) 92,769 -13.6% (16,416) 285,996 -5.4%Nantucket

Regular (34) 13,414 -0.3% 3,613 39,836 10.0%Fast Ferry - 0 0.0% (1,431) 0 -100.0%

Subtotal - Nantucket (34) 13,414 -0.3% 2,182 39,836 5.8%Total (14,689) 106,183 -12.2% (14,234) 325,832 -4.2%

Number of Automobiles CarriedMartha's Vineyard

Regular (1,507) 7,700 -16.4% (1,789) 22,917 -7.2%Excursion (2,467) 10,727 -18.7% (2,377) 34,176 -6.5%

Subtotal - M. Vineyard (3,974) 18,427 -17.7% (4,166) 57,093 -6.8%

NantucketRegular 23 1,070 2.2% 52 2,565 2.1%Excursion (36) 1,708 -2.1% (129) 4,933 -2.5%

Subtotal - Nantucket (13) 2,778 -0.5% (77) 7,498 -1.0%Total (3,987) 21,205 -15.8% (4,243) 64,591 -6.2%

Number of Trucks CarriedMartha's Vineyard

Less than 20' - Regular (682) 2,666 -20.4% (284) 8,240 -3.3%Less than 20' - Excursion (735) 2,649 -21.7% (806) 8,346 -8.8%20' and over (383) 3,496 -9.9% (155) 9,853 -1.5%

sub-total - M.Vineyard (1,800) 8,811 -17.0% (1,245) 26,439 -4.5%Nantucket

Less than 20' - Regular (99) 714 -12.2% (39) 2,169 -1.8%Less than 20' - Excursion (81) 695 -10.4% (240) 1,993 -10.7%20' and over (164) 2,183 -7.0% 120 6,238 2.0%

sub-total - Nantucket (344) 3,592 -8.7% (159) 10,400 -1.5%Total (2,144) 12,403 -14.7% (1,404) 36,839 -3.7%

Number of Cars ParkedWoods Hole, Falmouth and Cataumet 3,844 -1.2% (160) 10,839 -1.5%Hyannis, Nantucket (47) 501 13.6% 178 1,445 14.0%

Total 60 4,345 0.3% 18 12,284 0.1%

13

Average Length of Stay - Cars Parked (Days)

Woods Hole, Falmouth and Cataumet 1.76 1.9% (0.02) 1.77 -1.1%Hyannis, Nantucket 0.03 2.74 -7.7% (0.04) 3.04 -1.2%

Total (0.23) 1.87 1.0% (0.00) 1.92 -0.2%

0.02

Average Revenue per Passenger *Martha's Vineyard 6.99$ 0.1% 6.85$ 0.0%Nantucket 17.22 -1.0% 17.23 -2.8%

Total 8.29$ 1.8% 8.12$ 0.7%

Average Revenue per AutomobileMartha's Vineyard 27.35$ 0.7% 26.81$ -0.3%Nantucket 82.37 0.9% 77.81 0.9%

Total 34.56$ 4.1% 32.73$ 0.9%

Average Revenue per TruckMartha's Vineyard 95.98$ 6.8% 92.50$ 3.5%Nantucket 260.54 1.3% 263.95 3.6%

Total 143.64$ 6.3% 140.90$ 4.3%

* Excludes any town embarkation fees.

Business Summary for the Month of March 2018

March, 2018 Year to Date

Page 1

DRAFT

DRAFT

Part II - Net Income (Loss) from Operations


Vs. 2018 Operating Budget Increase/(Decrease) Increase/(Decrease)

Net Income (Loss) from OperationsOperating Revenues 3,891,601$ (420,971)$ 11,210,194$ (440,062)$ Other Income 163,147 13,563 463,983 25,131

Total Income 4,054,748 (407,408) 11,674,177 (414,931)

Operating Expenses 8,982,940 874,525 23,384,114 1,701,442 Fixed Charges and Other Expenses 243,830 (44,184) 739,247 (154,611)

Total Expenses 9,226,770 830,341 24,123,361 1,546,831

Net Operating Income (Loss) (5,172,022)$ (1,237,749)$ (12,449,184)$ (1,961,762)$

Operating Revenues:Auto Revenue 731,891$ (142,300)$ 2,095,203$ (246,037)$ Freight Revenue 1,781,439 (186,491) 5,179,865 12,632 Passenger Revenue 940,949 (87,624) 2,775,035 (58,090) Bicycle, Mail, Misc. Voyage Rev. 51,037 (41,241) 164,204 (31,878) Revenue from Terminal Operations 226,570 43,970 559,587 (52,738) Parking Revenue 101,042 42 285,843 (1,407) Rents 58,673 (7,327) 150,457 (62,544)

Sub-Total - Operating Revenue 3,891,601 (420,971) 11,210,194 (440,062) Other Income:

Interest Income 9,835 6,685 23,502 13,952 Miscellaneous Income 153,312 6,878 440,481 11,179

Sub-Total - Other Income 163,147 13,563 463,983 25,131

Total Income 4,054,748$ (407,408)$ 11,674,177$ (414,931)$

Operating Expenses:Wages 2,701,852$ 185,775$ 7,386,047$ 288,882$ Pensions Health & Welfare 1,198,456 (52,079) 3,777,316 263,991 Payroll Taxes 173,870 14,606 500,365 3,656 Depreciation 911,636 (23,770) 2,627,088 (180,241) Vessel Fuel Oil 267,617 (102,357) 866,777 (133,185) Insurance 302,678 (32) 901,147 (6,983) Direct Vessel Maintenance(Excld. Wages) 1,970,111 430,761 3,569,031 572,381 Direct Terminal Maintenance(Excld. Wages) 46,655 (67,545) 456,300 208,400 Utilities 128,912 51,131 370,875 98,272 Other 1,281,153 438,035 2,929,168 586,269

Sub-Total - Operating Expenses 8,982,940 874,525 23,384,114 1,701,442

Fixed Charges and Other Expenses: Bond Interest & Expense 200,400 (43,759) 608,565 (153,336) Misc. Charges or Deductions 43,430 (425) 130,682 (1,275)

Sub-Total - Other Expenses 243,830 (44,184) 739,247 (154,611)

Total Expenses 9,226,770 830,341 24,123,361 1,546,831

Net Operating Income (Loss) (5,172,022)$ (1,237,749)$ (12,449,184)$ (1,961,762)$

Business Summary for the Month of March, 2018 (Continued)


Page 2

DRAFT Management Discussion and Analysis - March, 2018 DRAFT

Management Discussion and Analysis: January - March, 2018 (Year to Date)

Vessel fuel expense of $268,000 was $102,000 below budget estimates. The average actual cost per gallon for vessel fuel oil in March was $1.965, including net hedging costs, while the budgeted cost was $2.141 per gallon. During March, the vessels logged 16,010 miles, which were 3,318 miles lower than budget, or a decrease of 17.2%. During March, 136,196 gallons of vessel fuel were consumed. This represents a decrease of 37,000 gallons, or 21.2%, versus budget. General administrative expenses for the month were down $49,000 or 2.5%. Legal expense was up $3,000; pension expense was up $10,000, health care expense was down $101,000, disability contributions were down $16,000, unemployment contributions were up $55,000, and training expense was down $7,000 and credit card fees were down $3,000. Other expenses included $106,000 of rents for the Sea Streak charter.

Other income, including interest income, debt premium and license income, totaled $463,983 and was $25,131 higher than budget projections. Income deductions, including interest on funded debt and pension withdrawal, totaled $739,247 and were $154,611 lower than budget. Year to date, the Authority's net operating loss, including other income, income deductions and bond interest expense, was $12,449,184 or $1,961,762 higher than budget projections.

Other income, including interest income, debt premium and license income, totaled $163,147 and was $13,563 higher than budget projections. Income deductions, including interest on funded debt and pension withdrawal, totaled $243,830 and were $44,184 lower than budget. The Authority's net operating loss for the month of March, including other income, income deductions and bond interest expense, was $5,172,022 or $1,237,749 higher than budget projections for the month.

Total operating revenues for March decreased by $420,971 or 9.8% versus the amount projected in the 2018 operating budget, for a total of $4,054,748 in operating revenues. Passenger revenues for the month were down $88,000 versus budget projections, which represents a decrease of 8.5%. Automobile revenues were down $142,000, or 16.3%, versus budget projections for March. Freight revenues were down $186,000, or 9.5%, versus budget projections for the month. Parking revenues were up during March by $42. Concession revenues in March were down $8,000 or 28.2%. Rent revenues from barge unloading and rental car space were down $7,000, or 11.1%, in March versus budget.

Total operating expenses for the month were up $874,525, or 10.8%, versus the amount projected in the 2018 budget for a total of $8,982,940. Maintenance expenses for the month were up $565,852, or 24.1%, versus budget. M/V Martha's Vineyard drydock expense was up $136,000, M/V Island Home drydock was up $320,000 and M/V Woods Hole overhaul expense was up $146,000.

During March, the vessels made a combined 1,245 trips. This represents a decrease of 269 trips, or 17.8%, versus budget for the month. On the Vineyard route, 411 trips were canceled for mechanical reasons, 141 for weather related and 3 for traffic demands while 339 unscheduled trips were added. On the Nantucket route, 0 trips were canceled for mechanical reasons, 66 for weather related and 3 for traffic demands while 16 unscheduled trips were added.

Year to date total operating revenues decreased by $440,062 or 3.8% versus the amount projected in the 2018 operating budget, for a total of $11,210,194 in operating revenues. Passenger revenues for the year were down $58,000 versus budget projections, which represents a 2.1% decrease. Automobile revenues were down $246,000, or 10.5%, versus budget projections. Freight revenues were up $13,000 or 0.2%, versus budget projections. Parking revenues were down $1,000, or 0.5%, compared to budget forecast. Rent revenues from barge unloading and rental car space were down $63,000, or 29.4%, versus budget.

Year to date operating expenses were up $1,701,442 or 7.9%, versus the amount projected in the 2017 budget for a total of $23,384,114. Maintenance expenses for the year are up $1,257,000, or 25.0%, versus budget. Dry-dock repairs for the M/V Martha's Vineyard were up $242,000, for the M/V Island Home were up $310,000, for the M/V Governor were up $105,000. Engine parts and overhaul expenses for the M/V Woods Hole were up $217,000. Dolphin and dock repairs at the Woods Hole terminal are up $188,000; dolphin and dock repairs at the Vineyard Haven terminal are up $67,000; Oak Bluffs dock repairs were up $94,000.

Year to date, the vessels made a combined 3,790 trips. This represents a decrease of 404 trips, or 9.6%, versus budget. On the Vineyard route, 469 trips were canceled for mechanical reasons, 219 for weather related and 53 for traffic demands, while 448 unscheduled trips were added. On the Nantucket route, 2 trips were canceled for mechanical reasons, 147 for weather related and 7 for traffic demands, while 45 unscheduled trips were added.

Vessel fuel expense of $867,000 was $133,000, or 13.3%, below budget estimates. The average actual cost per gallon for vessel fuel oil was $2.028 including net hedging costs, while the budgeted cost was $2.148 per gallon. 48,000 vessel miles have been logged through March, a decrease of 6,000 miles, or 10.6%, versus budget. 427,000 gallons of vessel fuel were consumed. This represents a decrease of 38,000 gallons or 8.2% versus budget. General administrative expenses for the year were up 6.3%, or $346,000. Legal expense was down $26,000, pension expense was up $151,000, health care costs were up $40,000, unemployment contributions were up $57,000, and disability contributions were up $16,000. Training expense was up $26,000; while credit card fees were up $23,000 and telephone expense was up $52,000.

Page 3

DRAFT Part III - Cash Balances


Positive / (Negative) Positive / (Negative)Cash Balance - Operations Fund

Beginning Balance 19,429,574$ 5,590,438$ 14,554,314$ 1,554,314$ Cash Receipts 6,668,996 (887,491) 25,213,284 569,453 Cash Receipts - Grants 21,156 21,156 242,983 242,983 Cash Receipts - Capital Projects 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Cash Disbursements (7,115,004) (1,394,362) (19,331,448) (1,769,462) Cash Disbursements - Capital Projects (1,714,220) (1,714,220) (3,135,064) (3,135,064) Transfers to Special Purpose Funds (5,124,093) (5,124,093) (5,377,660) (970,796)

Ending Balance 12,168,409$ (3,506,572)$ 12,168,409$ (3,506,572)$

15,674,981 15,674,981 Cash Balance - Special Purpose Funds

Sinking FundBeginning Balance 8,786,285$ (2,878,429)$ 8,510,755$ 1,261,755$

Transfers from Revenue Fund 1,147,005 1,147,005 1,400,572 (3,006,292) Income from Investments 1,762 (5,688) 23,725 7,425 Accrued Interest Received - - - - Debt Service Payments (8,473,325) (1,243,825) (8,473,325) (1,243,825)

Ending Balance 1,461,727$ (2,980,937)$ 1,461,727$ (2,980,937)$

4,442,664 1,461,726.63 Replacement Fund

Beginning Balance 5,958,727$ (7,785,973)$ 9,683,515$ (7,291,485)$ Transfers from Revenue Fund 3,977,088 3,977,088 3,977,088 3,977,088 Transfers from Bond Redemption - - - - Proceeds from Disposal of Property - - - - Income from Investments 11,478 2,678 31,700 3,200 Withdrawals (2,125,588) (225,588) (5,870,598) (720,598)

Ending Balance 7,821,705$ (4,031,795)$ 7,821,705$ (4,031,795)$

11,853,500 7,821,704.51 Reserve Fund

Beginning Balance 3,572,005$ 252,405$ 3,562,986$ 247,486$ Transfers from Revenue Fund - - - - Income from Investments 5,193 3,043 14,212 7,962 Transfers to Bond Redemption Acct. - - - -

Ending Balance 3,577,198$ 255,448$ 3,577,198$ 255,448$

3,321,750 3,577,197.81 Bond Redemption Account

Beginning Balance 14,731,091$ 218,491$ 14,693,895$ 198,895$ Transfers from Revenue Fund - - - - Transfers from Reserve Fund - - - - Transfers to Replacement Fund - - - - Income from Investments 21,416 12,166 58,612 31,762

Ending Balance 14,752,507$ 230,657$ 14,752,507$ 230,657$

14,521,850 14,752,506.88 Capital Improvement Fund

Beginning Balance 991,194$ 70,844$ 2,360,790$ 955,790$ From Bond/Note Issue - - - - Income from Investments 902 702 5,073 4,523 Withdrawals (492,669) (250,169) (1,866,436) (1,138,936)

Ending Balance 499,427$ (178,623)$ 499,427$ (178,623)$

678,050 499,427.25 678,050 ** Cash Disbursements from the Operations Fund in December, 2008 include $1,908,556 in expenditures for

Capital projects. Reimbursement for these expenditure was made from the Capital Improvement Accountin December, 2008 and are reflected in the Operations Fund Cash Receipts for December.

Year to DateMarch, 2018

Page 4

DRAFT

Part IV - Cash Transfers to Special Purpose Funds for 2018

2018 2018Budget Estimate

ActualCash Transfers from Revenue Fund:

To Sinking Fund (for current debt service requirements) 10,043,400$ 10,043,400$ To Replacement Fund (2017 max. transfers - $10,078,794) 9,417,387 6,628,043 To Reserve Fund (106,850) (106,850) To Bond Redemption Account 106,850 106,850

Total Transfers to Special Purpose Funds 19,460,787$ 16,671,443$

* Current estimate is based on the actual cash balance as of 3/31/2018 plus projected cash receipts and disbursements forthe remainder of the year, per the 2018 Operating Budget.

Part V - Allocation of Net Operating Income by Route for 2018

Allocation of Net Operating Income by Route for 2018

Martha's Vineyard Nantucket Total

Operating Revenues 59,575,801$ 45,793,034$ 105,368,835$ Other Non-Service Income - Net 805,373 1,923,965 2,729,338

Total Income 60,381,174$ 47,716,999$ 108,098,173$


Cost of Service 62,108,134$ 40,747,045$ # 102,855,179$


Net Operating Income by Route for 2018 (1,726,960)$ 6,969,954$ 5,242,994$

% Distribution by Route -32.9% 132.9% 100.0%2017 BUDGET $370,280 $6,834,477 7,204,757$

5.1% 94.9% (1,961,763)$ 1$

* Based on actual net operating income (loss) for the first 3 month plus 9 months of projected net operating income (loss) for the remainder of the year, per the 2018 Operating Budget

Business Summary for the Month of March, 2018 (Continued)

Page 5

DRAFT Part VI - Share of Market versus Licensed Ferry Services

Number of Passengers Carried Amount Amount

Martha's Vineyard

Steamship Authority 92,769 (14,655) -13.6% 285,996 (16,416) -5.4%

Hy-LineRegular 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%High Speed 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Subtotal Hy-Line 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Falmouth Ferry Service 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%



Total * 92,769 (14,655) -13.6% 285,996 (16,416) -5.4%

Nantucket

Steamship Authority

Regular 13,414 (34) -0.3% 39,836 3,613 10.0%Fast Ferry (Prior to April 1) 0 0 0.0% 0 (1,431) -100.0%Fast Ferry (April 1) (in service 2017) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%Fast Ferry (April 2 and after)(in service 2017) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Subtotal - Nantucket 13,414 (34) -0.3% 39,836 2,182 5.8%

Hy-LineRegular 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%HighSpeed (Prior to April 1) 32,244 90 0.3% 89,333 (5,216) -5.5%HighSpeed (April 1)(IYA in service 2017) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%HighSpeed (April 2 & after)(IYA in service 2017) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Subtotal Hy-Line 32,244 90 0.3% 89,333 (5,216) -5.5%

Freedom Cruise Line (Harwich) 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%



Total 45,658 56 0.1% 129,169 (3,034) -2.3%

M/V Iyanough in service 04/01/2017 - 12/30/17 and 04/02/2018 - 01/02/2019.* Note: Island Queen passenger service is grandfathered and as such traffic counts are not included .


License Fee Income 54,050 537$ 143,696$ (7,920)$


Weather Observations #Average Maximum Temperature (Fahrenheit) 43.6 1.5 10.4 -48.5Total Precipitation (in water equivalent inches) 5.72 3.78 15.98 7.27Number of Days with Measurable Precipitation 10 0 36 2

# Based on NOAA, National Climatic Data Center unedited climatological data for Barnstable Airport in Hyannis

Year to Date


March, 2018

March, 2018 Year to DateChange

vs. Prev. Yr.Change

vs. Prev. Yr.

Page 6

Notice

This manual supersedes the 2014 edition of The Chapter 30B Manual. The contents of

older editions may not reflect current law or interpretations of the Office of the Inspector

General. You may download this manual from our website at www.mass.gov/ig or

purchase copies from the State Bookstore, Room 116, State House, Boston, MA 02133,

(617) 727-2834.

Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General

Address: Room 1311 John McCormack State Office Building One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Contact Information: (617) 727 - 9140 (Main Office) (617) 722 - 8838 (Chapter 30B) (617) 727 - 9140 (MCPPO Program) (800) 322 - 1323 (Confidential 24-Hour Hotline) (617) 723 - 2334 (FAX) www.mass.gov/ig

Copyright 2016 by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General, Boston, Massachusetts

All rights reserved First edition published 1990, revised 1995, 1998, 2000, 2006, 2011, 2014, 2016

Printed on recycled paper

You can use RFPs only if your local government has appointed a Chief Procurement Officer (CPO). (Chapter 2 has more information on the rules for CPO appointment and delegation.) If you have questions, check with your CPO (if you have one) or legal counsel.

CHAPTER 5. Supplies or Services Estimated to Cost More Than $50,000: Proposals

Bidding is the basic method under Chapter 30B for procuring supplies or services

estimated to cost more than $50,000. However, when it is in your local jurisdiction’s

best interest to do so, you may instead use a request for proposals (RFP) to award such

contracts.60 The RFP process permits you to weigh the relative merits of proposals

submitted by competing offerors. You award

the contract to the offeror submitting the

most advantageous proposal, taking into

consideration the proposals’ relative merits

and prices. Unlike the bidding process, the

RFP process may not always result in

selection of the proposer that meets your

quality requirements and offers the lowest

price. While service contracts may seem at first glance to be most suited to the RFP

process, many service contracts can and should be procured using an invitation for bids

(IFB). See Chapter 2 of this manual for more information on deciding between an IFB

process and an RFP process.

Chapter 2 reviewed the first steps involved in procuring supplies and services:

determining what you need, writing a purchase description (also called specifications or

scope of services), developing contract terms and conditions, and estimating the value

of the contract. You should review that information before continuing with this chapter,

which reviews the specific steps involved in soliciting competitive sealed proposals

under Chapter 30B.

Under Chapter 30B, only a CPO or a person with delegated authority from the CPO

may procure supplies and services using the RFP process. The following discussion

assumes you are the CPO or have delegated authority, unless otherwise noted.

60 Under M.G.L. c. 71, § 7A, you must use an IFB process to procure school bus transportation contracts for which you are seeking state reimbursement.

Chapter 5: Supplies or Services Estimated to Cost More Than $50,000: Proposals 48

Step 1: Document your decision to use the RFP process

If you decide that the RFP process is preferable to the IFB process for a given

procurement, you must document your decision, along with the reasons for it, in writing.

For example, in determining that the RFP process should be used to procure consultant

services to assess a city’s health coverage requirements, it would not be sufficient to

state: “I have determined that the RFP process for this procurement will be most

advantageous for the city.” Your written rationale must specify the reasons for your

determination that your local jurisdiction’s interests will be served by a process that

allows you to select a proposal that exceeds your quality requirements, even if it does

not offer you the lowest price. For example, you might state: “The RFP process will

enable the city to provide higher ratings to consultants whose key project personnel

have extensive experience providing similar services to other cities and towns.”

Step 2: Prepare the RFP

Your RFP must contain all of the information that proposers will need to prepare a

responsive proposal. An RFP consists of the following major components:

purchase description or scope of services;

plan for providing the supplies or services, if required;

evaluation criteria, including quality requirements, comparative evaluation criteria and lowest price;

rule for award;

documents incorporated by reference, if any;

contract terms and conditions;

standard forms; and

the requirements for submitting proposals.


Chapter 2 provides detailed information on developing a purchase description or scope

of services and contract terms and conditions. The remaining elements of the RFP are

discussed below.61

Plan for providing the supplies or services, if required. When using the RFP

process, you have the option of requiring vendors to include a plan for providing the

proposed supplies or services. The contents of the plan must be evaluated, and

elements of the proposed plan may be negotiated with the proposer.

In essence, the plan contains specifics as to how the proposer will satisfy the purchase

description or scope of services. It is not a substitute for a complete purchase

description. Rather, it is a tool you can use to evaluate each proposer’s plan for meeting

your objectives; does the proposer offer the right methodology and resources to best

meet your needs? In most cases, it will probably be unnecessary to require a plan, but

you have the option to do so when you believe it would benefit your local jurisdiction.

For instance, if you seek proposals for the management and operation of a municipal

facility, you might decide to require each proposer to submit a plan, containing a

detailed organizational chart showing the chain of command, written job descriptions for

the key personnel who will be assigned to the contract, a description of the automated

systems the proposer will use to fulfill reporting and record-keeping functions, and a

proposed schedule for major maintenance activities. You would later evaluate the plan

and you can negotiate with the proposer for changes in the plan to ensure that your

objectives are met. The final plan will be incorporated into the contract.

If you require proposers to submit a plan, your RFP must specify the information to be

included in the plan. You should also specify a format and set limits on the length.

Evaluation criteria. Defining the criteria that you will use to evaluate the proposals you

receive is just as important as describing what you intend to purchase. You want to (1)

determine which proposers meet your quality requirements; (2) compare the

61 You may also wish to consult our Office’s Practical Guide to Drafting Effective Invitations for Bids and Requests for Proposals for Supplies and Services which may be downloaded from our website at www.mass.gov/ig/publications/guides-advisories-other-publications/pracguid.pdf.


advantages each proposal offers relative to your comparative criteria; and (3) compare

the prices the proposers offer and determine which is the lowest price. All of the criteria

you will use must be included in your RFP. You may not evaluate proposals against any

other criteria. Be careful to ensure that the evaluation criteria in the RFP reflect the full

range of standards you want to apply to the proposals you receive to maximize the

likelihood of receiving responsive proposals that are geared to the needs of your local

jurisdiction.

Quality requirements. Your quality requirements reflect those standards or

attributes that you consider essential to the satisfactory performance of the

contract. You will use quality requirements to identify responsive proposals

(those that offer all of the supplies or services requested in the RFP and that

contain all of the required information and forms, properly completed) and

responsible proposers (those with the capability, integrity and reliability to

perform under the contract).

Your quality requirements are “yes-or-no” standards that you will apply to every

proposal. Does the proposer meet each quality requirement? If the answer is

“yes,” the proposal remains under consideration. If the answer is “no,” the

proposal is eliminated from further consideration. If the nature of the work to be

performed under the contract demands that the contractor possess a very high

level of qualifications and training, then you should set very rigorous quality

requirements. However, if you set a higher standard than you truly need, you will

reduce the pool of qualified proposers and, in all likelihood, pay more than you

should for the supply or service.

For example, in selecting a consultant to evaluate your local jurisdiction’s health

coverage requirements, you might determine that only consultants who have

successfully completed at least three contracts providing health coverage

consulting to a private or public client of similar size are qualified to submit

proposals. If you include this criterion in the RFP, you must reject all proposals

submitted by consultants who do not meet the standard, since, by your own

definition, such consultants are not qualified to perform the work. As this


If you want proposers to make in-person presentations or attend interviews, you must develop criteria to evaluate the presenters or interviewees. Keep in mind that there is an inherent danger in the use of presentations as an evaluation tool. Proposers may earn high ratings because of effective sales techniques rather than the quality of their services. Make sure that interviews are attended and presentations are made by the staff to be assigned to the contract rather than by marketing or public relations personnel. Ask the same questions of all proposers. Keep in mind that you must be able to articulate and defend the ratings you award to proposers for presentations or interviews.

example illustrates, it is important that your quality requirements truly reflect the

standards or qualifications necessary to perform the work.

Comparative evaluation criteria. At this point in the RFP development

process, you have established your quality requirements to identify the

responsive proposals submitted by responsible proposers. Now you need to

define the comparative evaluation criteria to be applied to all proposals that meet

your quality requirements. In effect, comparative evaluation criteria reflect

standards or attributes for which you might be willing to spend more money.

Your RFP must identify each comparative criterion you will use. Make them as

specific as possible and connect them as closely as you can to the tasks

contained in the purchase description. Do not use vaguely worded phrases such

as “past performance” or “creativity

of approach,” which provide little

guidance either to competitors who

submit proposals or to those

responsible for evaluating the

proposals received. Remember that

the more specific information you

provide, the more likely you are to

receive good proposals offering the

supplies or services you want. In

addition, if your criteria are vague,

you will not establish a level playing

field for the competition and your

RFP will be subject to challenge.


You may not substitute numerical ratings for the qualitative ratings. Point systems are often deceptive, creating the illusion that qualitative judgments can be compared with mathematical precision. Point differences may actually reflect small, inconsequential differences between proposals.

For each comparative criterion you

are required to assign a specific

rating. You must use some or all of

the following ratings: “highly

advantageous,” “advantageous,” “not

advantageous” or “unacceptable.”

You must specify what standard a

proposer must meet to achieve each

rating. You have flexibility in defining the ratings to best meet your evaluation

needs, and you need not include all four rating categories in your RFP if you do

not need them all. In fact, the fewer categories you use, the easier it may be to

develop the RFP and later evaluate proposals. You may establish whatever

rating scheme that makes sense for your procurement. Examples of

comparative evaluation criteria ratings are provided on the next page.

If you find in developing the evaluation criteria for a specific procurement that you

really have no need for comparative evaluation criteria – i.e., you plan to select

the best offer from the pool of vendors meeting your submission and quality

requirements – then the RFP process is inappropriate for the procurement.

Instead, you should solicit competitive sealed bids in accordance with the

procedures set forth in Chapter 4 of this manual.

Lowest price. The RFP must inform proposers of the method you will use to

compare prices and determine the lowest proposal price. In many cases,

identifying the lowest price is straightforward, as when proposers submit prices

consisting of a single dollar figure. In other cases, however, some calculation

may be required. If you are awarding a multi-year contract, you must specify

whether you want proposers to submit a single price that will apply to each year

of the contract term, a separate price for each year of the contract term, or an

initial price that will be adjusted periodically based on a published index identified

in the RFP. In each case, you must state how you will calculate the total price of

each proposal in order to identify the proposal offering the lowest price.


Examples of Comparative Evaluation Criteria Ratings

Example 1: Experience. You want to hire a vendor to manage your public golf course. As one evaluation criterion, you decide to compare the experience of the superintendent of each firm that meets your quality requirements. In effect, you believe that it may be worth paying more for additional experience. You require each competing firm to submit the resume and references for the proposed superintendent.

Criterion: Experience managing a golf course.

Highly advantageous: The proposed superintendent has five (5) or more years of experience as a golf course superintendent managing an 18-hole golf course.

Advantageous: The proposed golf course superintendent has three (3) or more years of experience as a golf course superintendent OR five (5) or more years of experience at an assistant golf course superintendent level or higher, managing an 18-hole golf course.

Not advantageous: The proposed golf course superintendent has less than three (3) years of experience as a golf course superintendent OR less than five (5) years of experience at an assistant golf course superintendent level or higher, managing an 18-hole golf course.

Example 2: Computer Software. You are buying municipal finance software. One comparative criterion is ease of staff use, which you will judge based on an on-site municipal demonstration of the system. The evaluators will be the employees using the software.

Criterion: Ease of use.

Highly advantageous: Application screens are clear and set up logically. Fields can be accessed easily and quickly. Multiple screens are logically sequenced and can be quickly accessed from other relevant screens. Users with minimal training and experience can quickly learn to navigate the system with training of one day or less.

Advantageous: Application screens are generally clear and set up logically. Fields can be accessed easily and quickly. Multiple screens are logically sequenced but must be accessed by going through a series of screens. Users with minimal training and experience are likely to require more than a day of training.

Unacceptable: Application screens are unclear and are not set up logically.


Weigh the pressure to award a contract quickly against the need to maximize competition. Shorter periods of time may favor a vendor who has held the contract in the past, or simply eliminate potential competitors.

Rule for award. When you use an RFP process, you award the contract to the

proposer offering the most advantageous proposal, taking into consideration all quality

requirements and comparative criteria set forth in the RFP as well as price. This rule for

award should be stated in the RFP. For example, a city’s rule for award for a

management consultant contract might be the following statement:

The city will select the responsive and responsible management consultant submitting the most advantageous proposal, taking into consideration the management consultant’s experience, staff capacity, references and plan for providing the services, as well as the proposal price.

Documents incorporated by reference. If you incorporate documents by reference

into the RFP, you must specify where proposers may obtain these documents.

Standard forms. Chapter 30B requires each proposer to certify that the proposal was

made in good faith and without collusion or fraud.62 It is a good idea to include a copy

of this certification, also called a non-collusion form, in your RFP to ensure compliance

with this requirement. A sample non-collusion form is included in Appendix B.

Typically, proposers also are required to complete other standard forms, including a

proposal price sheet. Any standard forms should be included in the RFP.

Proposal submission requirements. The RFP must specify when (date and time)

and where sealed proposals must be delivered. You must require proposers to submit

separate sealed price and non-price (or technical) proposals. Provide instructions on

how to mark proposal packages and how to correct, modify or withdraw proposals.

Also, you must specify the maximum amount of time you reserve to award a contract.

Step 3: Provide public notice of the RFP

You must give public notice of an RFP within

a reasonable time prior to the date for the

opening of proposals.63 At a minimum, the

notice must be published two weeks before

62 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 10. 63 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 6(c).


proposals are due. Otherwise, what is “reasonable” depends on the nature of the RFP.

The more complex the proposal, or the more items or services included in the proposal,

the more time proposers may need to prepare their proposals. The availability of

qualified proposers may also affect the RFP schedule. If you will need to search for and

encourage proposers, you should allow extra time.

The public notice must contain the following information:

1. a statement of where, when and for how long the RFP may be obtained;

2. a description of the supply or service desired (i.e., a summary of the detailed purchase description included in the RFP);

3. a notice that your local jurisdiction reserves the right to reject any or all proposals; and

4. an identification of any board, committee, commission or other body which must approve the contract.

You may include other information in the notice. For example, if you have decided to

establish a charge for copies of the RFP, indicate the amount of the charge and the

form in which it must be paid.

You must post the notice in a conspicuous place in or near your local jurisdiction’s

offices until the time specified in the RFP for receipt of proposals (a minimum of two

weeks). If your local jurisdiction has an official bulletin board or website, the notice

should be posted there.

You must also publish the notice at least once, not less than two weeks before to the

time specified for submitting proposals, in one newspaper of general circulation within

the area served by your local jurisdiction and on the COMMBUYS64 system

administered by the Operational Services Division (OSD). You may, of course, publish

the notice in more than one newspaper in your area, in newspapers outside your area,

and more than once. You may publish the notice elsewhere, including on a website.

64 COMMBUYS is the Commonwealth’s electronic procurement system. Any public agency in Massachusetts can post solicitations on the COMMBUYS system free of charge. For additional information, visit www.commbuys.com.


Require that evaluators disclose potential conflicts of interest. A potential conflict of interest exists whenever an evaluator has a past or current financial or personal relationship with a potential proposer. If a potential conflict of interest exists, you should verify with the State Ethics Commission whether the evaluator needs to be removed from the process or other action should be taken.

You may also send a copy of the notice, after it has been posted and published, to

anyone who might be interested.

If the contract value will be more than $100,000, you must also publish a notice in the

Goods and Services Bulletin published by the Secretary of the Commonwealth.65 We

recommend publishing this notice at least two weeks before proposals are due.

You may contact vendors to let them know about the RFP. If you maintain vendor lists

for contracts, you may send a copy of the notice or the RFP to those vendors on the list

who might be interested in the particular contract. You may also simply call vendors to

encourage proposals. However, be careful to avoid favoritism or the appearance of

favoritism.

Step 4: Distribute the RFP

You must make the RFP available on an equal basis to all who request a copy. If you

charge vendors a reasonable fee for copies of the RFP, you must charge all vendors

the same fee. Keep a record of all vendors who receive the RFP. If you later issue an

addendum to the RFP, send the addendum to all those who have already received the

RFP. To avoid misunderstandings or protests, include a requirement in the RFP that

vendors acknowledge in writing their receipt of any addenda. Also, if vendors are likely

to require additional time to respond to the addendum, extend the proposal due date.

Step 5: Designate the individual(s) responsible for evaluating proposals

You must select one or more individuals to

evaluate the non-price, or technical,

proposals. The CPO could be the sole

evaluator or member of the evaluation team.

If you are using a committee to conduct the

evaluation, our Office recommends an odd

number of members, such as three to five

65 Appendix B provides the website address for the online submission form for this notice.


individuals. You may, as other local jurisdictions have done, ask staff of the department

that will be using the supplies or services to evaluate proposals. These employees

often have the expertise to understand complicated technical proposals. Some local

jurisdictions ask members of relevant boards to sit on their evaluation committees.66

You need not limit committee membership to employees of the local jurisdiction. For

example, you may employ an independent consultant or appoint citizens to participate

on your evaluation committee.67

Step 6: Receive the sealed price and non-price proposals

Be prepared to receive separate, sealed price and non-price proposals after you issue

the RFP. You must maintain a register of all proposals received. This register is a

public record, but the price and non-price proposals are not made public until the

evaluation process is completed or until the time for acceptance specified in the RFP,

whichever occurs first. It is good practice to note on the sealed price and non-price

proposal packages the date and time they were received and to provide proposers with

receipts for their proposals upon request.

Prior to the proposal opening, a proposer may correct, modify or withdraw the proposal

(non-price and price) by following the instructions you provided in the RFP. A proposer

who wishes to withdraw a proposal must make the request in writing. Any correction or

modification to a proposal must be submitted in writing. Because the original proposals

must be submitted as sealed packages, the RFP should require that corrections or

modifications also be sealed when submitted.

Late and overlooked proposals. A late proposal is a proposal that is delivered after

the deadline for submitting proposals. If a proposal is late for any reason, you should

reject the proposal as nonresponsive to your proposal submission requirements.

66 If the board or committee is subject to the open meeting law, the board or committee must go into executive session to preserve the confidentiality of proposals. M.G.L. c. 30A, § 21(a), permits a governmental body to go into executive session to comply with the provisions of any general or special law, which includes compliance with M.G.L. c. 30B, § 6. 67 Remember that the contract with the independent consultant is itself subject to Chapter 30B.


Similarly, you may not accept a correction or modification delivered after the proposal

due date and time. If you do receive such a late correction or modification, you should

treat it as a late proposal and evaluate only the original proposal that was received by

the deadline.

An overlooked proposal is a proposal that was properly delivered on time but was not

opened in a timely manner because of an error by your local jurisdiction. An example of

an overlooked proposal would be a proposal that was properly delivered the day before

the due date but not opened at the designated time because the procurement officer

neglected to bring it to the proposal opening.

In the case of overlooked proposals, your two main considerations should be (1)

whether the overlooked proposal was the most advantageous proposal from a

responsive and responsible vendor and (2) whether the overlooked proposal was held

in a secure location from the proposal deadline until the time that the overlooked

proposal was discovered. With these considerations in mind, we recommend that you

take the following steps:

Notify all proposers of the error.

Open the overlooked proposal in the presence of one or more witnesses. (In the interest of fairness, we do not recommend returning an overlooked proposal without opening it. If you returned the overlooked proposal and then resolicited proposals for the same contract, this proposer would have an advantage as the only proposer with an unexposed proposal.)

Determine whether the overlooked proposal was held in a secure location from the proposal deadline to the time of discovery.

Determine whether the overlooked proposal is the most advantageous proposal from a responsive and responsible proposer.

If not, award the contract to the proposer submitting the most advantageous proposal, and retain the overlooked proposal along with the other proposals in the procurement file.

If so, and the proposal had been held in a secure location, award the contract to the proposer.

If so, but the proposal had not been held in a secure location, we recommend resoliciting proposals.

Retain the overlooked proposal along with the other proposals in the procurement file.


Evaluate proposals efficiently. If you determine that a proposal is nonresponsive or a proposer is not responsible, you should eliminate that proposal from further consideration. You do not need to take the extra time to evaluate these proposals according to your other criteria because they are not eligible for award of the contract.

Step 7: Open and register the proposals

You may not open the proposals publicly. The contents of the proposals are to be kept

confidential and not disclosed to competing proposers or any other outside individuals

until the evaluation process is completed or until the time for acceptance specified in the

RFP, whichever occurs first.

You must separate the price and non-price proposals. The non-price, or technical

proposals, must be opened at the time specified in the RFP in the presence of one or

more witnesses. At the time of the opening, you must prepare and make available for

public inspection a register of proposals, which includes the name of each proposer and

the number of proposal modifications submitted by each proposer. You should also

record the name(s) of the witness(es).

You may open the price proposals immediately after opening the technical proposals or

at a later time. However, be sure that you do not disclose the price proposals to the

non-price proposal evaluator(s) until they have completed their evaluations. If you, as

the CPO, are one of the evaluators, then you may not open the price proposals until the

evaluation of the technical proposals is completed. The separation of technical and

price proposals is an important element of the RFP process. The process is structured

to allow an orderly, fair comparison of the proposals.

Step 8: Evaluate non-price proposals

As previously noted, the individual(s) chosen to evaluate the technical, or non-price,

proposals may not see the price proposals until the evaluation of the technical

proposals is complete. Proposal

evaluations must be based solely on the

criteria set forth in the RFP. The non-price

proposal evaluator(s) must examine each

proposal to determine whether it meets all of

the submission requirements and quality

requirements specified in the RFP. Any

proposal that fails to comply with the


You may not “shortlist” proposals. You are using proposals instead of bids because you determined that it is in the best interest of your jurisdiction to compare proposals based on more than price. You must fully evaluate all responsive and responsible proposals that meet your quality requirements and assign each one an overall rating.

submission requirements or fails to meet any of your quality requirements for

responsiveness and responsibility must be eliminated from the competition.

In determining the responsiveness of a proposal, you must waive minor informalities or

allow the proposer to correct them.68

According to Chapter 30B, minor

informalities are “minor deviations,

insignificant mistakes, and matters of form

rather than substance of the [proposal] ...

which can be waived or corrected without

prejudice to other offerors, potential offerors,

or the governmental body.”69

A proposal may be withdrawn after it has been opened only if a mistake is clearly

evident on the face of the document, but the intended correct answer is not evident.70

You must correct a proposal if a mistake and the intended offer are clearly evident on

the face of the proposal document. In such a case, you must make the correction and

notify the proposer in writing. The proposer must not be permitted to withdraw its

proposal.71 A proposer may not impose any conditions on a proposal, or change the

price or any other provision of a proposal, in a manner prejudicial to the interests of your

local jurisdiction or fair competition.72

Proposal evaluations must be in writing. First, evaluators must specify in writing a rating

of “highly advantageous,” “advantageous,” “not advantageous,” or “unacceptable”

corresponding to each comparative evaluation criterion set forth in the RFP. We

recommend that you require all evaluators to prepare their own ratings for each

comparative evaluation criterion. However, you may require the evaluators to reach a

consensus as a group on a rating for each comparative evaluation criterion. Whichever

68 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 6(f). 69 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 2. 70 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 6(f). 71 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 6(f). 72 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 6(f).


method you choose, the evaluators must also state in writing the reasons for each

rating.73

Next, the evaluators must specify in writing an overall composite rating to each proposal

and the reasons for the rating. Taking the ratings for each comparative evaluation

criterion into consideration, the evaluators must assign each proposal a composite

rating and state in writing their reasons for the rating.74 Of course, each composite

rating must rationally reflect the underlying ratings for each criterion. For example, a

proposal receiving “advantageous” ratings for all comparative criteria likely would not

warrant a “highly advantageous” composite rating. Keep in mind that if you are

following the Office’s recommended practice of having evaluators prepare individual

ratings for each proposal, all evaluators should prepare their own composite ratings.

We recommend providing evaluators with a uniform evaluation sheet to assist in

applying the comparative criteria to each proposal that has met the submission and

quality requirements set forth in your RFP. A sample RFP evaluation form is included in

Appendix B.

The evaluators’ written explanation of each rating is the place to provide further

information on the proposal characteristics to help guide the CPO in the final selection.

Is the proposal vastly superior to all others for this criterion and, therefore, worth a

substantial cost premium? What attributes of a proposal makes it warrant a “highly

advantageous” composite rating? How does it compare to other “highly advantageous”

proposals? For example, if a “highly advantageous” proposal is only marginally better

than those rated “advantageous,” such information should be communicated on the

evaluation sheet to the decision-maker (i.e., the CPO or person with authority delegated

by the CPO). The more qualitative information provided in the written explanations

accompanying the ratings, the better equipped the decision-maker will be to weigh

those ratings against the proposal prices to identify the most advantageous proposal.

The evaluators’ ratings may not be conditioned on negotiating changes to the proposal

with one exception; the exception applies if you have required proposers to submit a

73 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 6(e)(1). 74 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 6(e)(2).


plan for providing the supplies or services.75 An example of the use of a plan for

providing the supplies and services is provided on the next page.

Step 9: Evaluate price proposals

The CPO or person with authority delegated by the CPO will open and evaluate the

price proposals following the method specified in the RFP to determine the best price.

The price evaluation can be performed while non-price proposals are being evaluated

as long as the prices are not disclosed to the individuals responsible for evaluating the

non-price proposals. Remember, however, that if you are both the CPO and an

evaluator, you may not open the price proposals until after the evaluation of the

technical proposals is completed.

As with technical proposals, you must waive minor informalities76 or allow the proposer

to correct them. For example, the omission of a unit price figure is a minor deviation

that must be waived if the intended figure is readily ascertainable from other figures in

the proposal.

You must correct a price proposal if a mistake and the intended offer are clearly evident

on the face of the proposal document. In such a case, you must make the correction

and notify the proposer in writing. The proposer must not be permitted to withdraw its

proposal.

75 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 6(e)(3). 76 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 6(c). Furthermore, M.G.L. c. 30B, § 2, states that minor informalities are “minor deviations, insignificant mistakes, and matters of form rather than substance of the … proposal … which can be waived or corrected without prejudice to other offerors, potential offerors, or the governmental body.”


Evaluating a Proposer’s Plan for Providing the Supplies or Services

This plan is a detailed plan describing how the proposer will provide the needed supplies or services. For most contracts, you do not need this level of detail and you should not require proposers to submit a plan. In general, it makes more sense to spell out the performance measures or the deliverables required and to evaluate proposers based on their qualifications and track records, rather than to attempt to evaluate exactly how they propose to get the job done.

For an unusually complex contract, however, you may want to evaluate the staffing plan, the methodology, or other specific information about how each proposer intends to meet the contract requirements; for such a contract you may require a plan for providing the services. In evaluating a plan for providing services, you should specify the rating for each criterion on the basis of the plan presented in the proposal; you may also specify what the improved rating would be if specific changes are negotiated.

Example: You have issued an RFP for a contract to manage and operate a municipal golf course. The RFP requires each proposer to submit a plan, which consists of an organizational chart with the name, position, and resume of each individual who will be employed full time under the contract with overall responsibility in each of the following areas: financial management, golf pro services and groundskeeping services.

The RFP specifies the rating scheme with respect to each of the key positions. The rating scheme for the individual identified as having overall responsibility for financial management is as follows:

Criterion: Qualifications and experience in financial management. Advantageous: At least a bachelor’s degree in accounting and four or more

years in a position with overall financial management responsibility for an operation at least comparable in size and complexity to the golf course. Not advantageous: At least an associate’s degree in accounting and at least one year but less than four years in a position with overall financial management responsibility for an operation at least comparable in size and complexity to the golf course.

Unacceptable: Less than one year in a position with overall financial management responsibility for an operation at least comparable in size and complexity to the golf course or less than an associate’s degree in accounting.

The evaluators review a proposal that is rated advantageous in all other categories but has proposed a financial manager with only three years’ experience. The evaluators may recommend negotiating a change in staffing to replace the individual slated for this position with a more experienced financial manager. In this case, the proposal as submitted would earn a “not advantageous” rating on this criterion, but the evaluators would specify that the rating will change to “advantageous” if the proposer agrees to place an individual with four or more years’ experience and at least a bachelor’s degree in accounting.


Step 10: Identify the most advantageous proposal

The CPO, or person with authority delegated by the CPO, identifies the most

advantageous proposal, taking into consideration the proposal evaluations and the

proposal prices. This selection decision may be easy when, for example, the lowest-

priced proposal received the highest overall ratings, or all proposals received the same

rating and the differences are so insignificant that you decide to go with the lowest-

priced.

In other cases, you will have to carefully consider whether it is worthwhile for your local

jurisdiction to spend more money to contract with the higher-rated proposer. For

example, if one proposal is rated “highly advantageous” and has a higher price than the

lowest-priced “advantageous” proposal, you need to determine which proposal best

meets the needs of your local jurisdiction. The extra benefits afforded by the “highly

advantageous” proposal may not be worth the cost premium you would incur by

selecting that proposal. Then again, it may be. There is no mechanical process for

making the tradeoff.

Step 11: Negotiate changes (if any) to the plan for providing the supplies or services

If you required a plan, you may condition the contract award on the successful

negotiation of any revisions to the proposer’s plan that the evaluator(s) identified during

the evaluation phase of the process. The scope of these negotiations is limited to the

plan. That is, the RFP specifications, scope of services and contract terms are non-

negotiable.

If the RFP did not require proposers to submit a plan, or if the evaluators identified no

recommended changes in the plan, there is nothing to negotiate.

Step 12: Award the contract

You should give notice of the award decision to the selected proposer within the time for

acceptance that you specified in the RFP. The time for acceptance may be extended

by mutual agreement between the parties. If you do not award the contract to the

responsive and responsible proposer offering the lowest-priced proposal, you must


prepare a written explanation of your reasons and detail your basis for determining that

the quality of supplies or services under the contract will not exceed your needs.77 For

example:

The lowest-priced proposal received a composite rating of “not advantageous” because the sample training materials were poorly written and lacked specific step-by-step instructions to guide those being trained. I have determined that the cost savings offered by this proposal do not compensate for the lower quality of this proposer’s training materials in comparison with the training materials provided by other proposers. Therefore, I am awarding this contract to the next lowest-priced proposal, which received a composite rating of “advantageous” and will provide us with more effective training materials.

Sometimes a contract will require payment of a monetary sum to your local jurisdiction.

For example, you might award an auditorium management contract under which the

management firm pays you a monthly fee and retains the auditorium revenues. If you

award the contract to anyone other than the proposer submitting the highest price, you

must explain in writing the reasons for the award.

If you did not include in the contract a revision recommended by the evaluator(s) to the

vendor’s plan, you must explain in writing the reasons for omitting the revision from the

plan, as the plan will be incorporated by reference into the contract.

Canceling the RFP or rejecting all proposals. You are not required to award a

contract. You may cancel the RFP at any time until the proposals are opened, or you

may reject all proposals after they are opened, if you determine that canceling the RFP

or rejecting all proposals is in the best interest of your jurisdiction.78 For example, you

might determine that rejecting all proposals is in the best interest of your jurisdiction if

you discover your purchase description was inadequate or inaccurate. Of course, you

may not reject all proposals simply because a favored proposer did not submit the most

advantageous proposal. You must state in writing the reason for any cancellation or

rejection.

77 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 6(h). 78 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 9.


If the successful proposer refuses to execute the contract, you may award the contract to the proposer you determine to have offered the next most advantageous proposal, provided that the award is still within the time for acceptance specified in your RFP or that the time period has been extended by mutual agreement of the parties. Discuss with your legal counsel what action should be taken against the recalcitrant proposer. If the proposer posted a bid bond, consider attempting to collect against the bond.

Step 13: Execute the contract

After you notify the successful proposer of

the award, execute a written contract

containing all the terms and conditions

stated in the RFP. You may not change the

terms and conditions of the contract.

If you are unsure about who has the

appropriate authority to sign the contract,

consult with your legal counsel.

Step 14: Retain records

You must maintain a file of all written documents required by Chapter 30B for six years

from the date of final payment under a contract. These documents include the

following:

1. the written rationale for the decision to use an RFP;

2. the RFP, including any amendments;

3. the justification for using proprietary specifications (if any);79

4. the public notice; including a copy of the newspaper advertisement and your posting on the COMMBUYS system;

5. the Goods and Services Bulletin notice if the contract value is more than $100,000;

6. the register of proposals;

7. all proposals received, including the non-collusion forms;

8. any proposal corrections, modifications, withdrawals, as well as any notices of proposal corrections, modifications or withdrawals;

9. any notices of proposal rejections or procurement cancellation;

10. the individual and composite proposal ratings and written explanations;

11. the written rationale for the contract award, if the contract was not awarded to the proposer submitting the lowest price;

12. any written rationale for omitting from the contract any of the evaluators’ recommended revisions to the plan for providing the supplies or services;

79 Chapter 2 discusses the Chapter 30B rules for using proprietary specifications.


13. the notice of the contract award; and

14. the executed contract.

The contents of the proposal file must be open to public inspection.80

80 M.G.L. c. 30B, § 3.

As Issued on May 18, 2018

1 of 50

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

FOR MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES

TO UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

OF THE STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY’S OPERATIONS

CONTRACT NO. 06-2018 The Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority (the “SSA”) hereby requests proposals from management consulting firms to undertake a comprehensive review of the SSA’s operations, including its vessel operations, fleet maintenance, management structure, public communications and Information Technology systems, in accordance with this Request for Proposals (“RFP”). Proposals will be accepted until 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at the SSA’s Procurement Office, which is located on the second floor of the SSA’s Administrative Offices, 228 Palmer Avenue, Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540.

I. INTRODUCTION A. Objective. In issuing this RFP, the SSA’s objective is to enter into a proposed Contract (hereinafter the “Contract”) with the consulting firm who submits the most advantageous proposal to the SSA for analyzing and making recommendations to improve all aspects of the SSA’s operations, including its vessel operations, fleet maintenance, management structure, public communications and Information Technology systems. In March and early April 2018, the SSA experienced an unprecedented combination of vessel mechanical problems that have resulted in hundreds of sudden and unexpected trip cancellations. These events justifiably have led to an erosion in public confidence in the Authority’s operations and have raised questions about the SSA’s vessel maintenance practices, fleet rotations, public communications and all other aspects of its operations. In May 2018, a number of state and local public officials called upon the SSA to, among other things, engage the services of an outside consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of the SSA’s operations and, on May 15, 2018, the SSA’s governing Board unanimously voted to issue this RFP for that purpose. Copies of the letters


2 of 50

received by the SSA from public officials asking the SSA to have this outside review are attached to this RFP as Exhibit A. B. Background. Information about the SSA and its operations, including its vessels and operating schedules, can be found on the SSA’s website, www.SteamshipAuthority.com. As described on the website’s “Vessels” webpage (under the “About” tab), the SSA’s fleet consists of four large passenger/vehicle ferries (the M/V Eagle, the M/V Island Home, the M/V Martha’s Vineyard and the M/V Nantucket), five freight boats (the M/V Gay Head, the M/V Governor, the M/V Katama, the M/V Sankaty and the M/V Woods Hole), and one high-speed passenger-only ferry (the M/V Iyanough). As also shown in the “Approved Ferry Schedules with Freight Trips” category of documents on the “Policies, Forms and Information” webpage (also under the “About” tab): The SSA operates all four of its large passenger/vehicle ferries during the height of its

summer operating schedule (mid-June through early September). During each off-season (early September through mid-June), it operates only three of those vessels so that that it can rotate each of them into repair for its annual maintenance overhaul period (including dry-docks every other year).

The SSA also operates four of its five freight boats during most of its summer operating

schedule (mid-May through mid-October) and this year is also operating its fifth freight boat during the height of that schedule (mid-June through early September). During each off-season (mid-October through mid-June), it operates only two or three of those freight boats, depending upon the time of year, so that it can rotate each of them into repair for its annual maintenance overhaul period (including dry-docks every other year) and, as much as possible, have one of the freight boats be ready as a “spare” vessel to provide service in the event any of the other vessels have to be taken out of service for any reason. (Because the M/V Governor can provides reliable service only during the summer season, it is tied up cold during the off-season when it is not undergoing repair and maintenance, and thus cannot be a “spare” vessel during that time.)

The SSA operates its high-speed passenger-only ferry from the beginning of April through

early January each year, allowing that vessel to go into repair for its annual maintenance overhaul period each year from early January through the end of March.

A copy of the SSA’s Repair Schedule, as of October 17, 2017, for its vessels from 2017 into 2021, is attached to this RFP as Exhibit B. The SSA’s Vessel Maintenance Facility is located in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, and a drawing of that facility is attached to this RFP as Exhibit B. The facility does not have a dry dock, and the SSA is required to issue invitations for bids from shipyards to provide dry-dock services for the SSA’s vessels. Usually only two shipyards submit bids to provide those dry-dock services: Senesco Marine LLC of North Kingstown, Rhode Island, and Thames Shipyard and Repair Company of New London, Connecticut.


3 of 50

C. Recent Service Disruptions due to Vessel Mechanical Issues. In September 2017, the M/V Martha’s Vineyard, which was built at Atlantic Marine in Jacksonville, Florida, and placed into service in 1993, was sent for a mid-life refurbishment at Senesco Marine LLC at a total cost of $18,000,000 as well as a related dry-docking expenses of $2,000,000. The contract for the mid-life refurbishment project went out for bid in November 2016, and was awarded to Senesco Marine LLC in February 2017. The work performed during the mid-life refurbishment included, but was not limited to, the following:

a new 02 passenger deck with new restrooms and a redesigned center-cabin food concession area with two registers for faster service and increased inside seating;

a new elevator on the port side of the vessel that now provides elevator service between the mezzanine deck and the 02 passenger deck;

an extended 03 deck with more exterior seating;

increased seating on the mezzanine deck;

additional internet and receptacle outlets throughout the boat, as well as improved lighting, a new HVAC system, and new windows and doors;

three new ship’s service generators, a new wiring system and fire main system, and new CCTV, WIFI, and cell phone booster systems;

a new pilothouse and navigational equipment;

a new roll back bow door, a new stern door which can be operated by hand, and new deck hatches and capstans;

the rebuilding of the crew quarters with new joiner work, lighting and furnishings;

the addition of two sliding watertight doors in the Hold Deck; and

the complete rebuilding of the vessel’s bow thruster.

On Wednesday March 7, 2018, four days after it was scheduled to go back into service on the Martha’s Vineyard route, the M/V Martha’s Vineyard was placed back into service despite the fact that more than 200 punch-list items still needed to be addressed. Following is a timeline of subsequent events: March 15 At approximately 9:00 a.m., the M/V Woods Hole ran aground in shallow water as it

approached the slip in Vineyard Haven, but was able to back off the soft bottom and berth safely following the incident. There were 146 passengers on board, but no reported injuries at this time. Because there was no damage to the vessel, the United States Coast Guard allowed it to return to Woods Hole (without passengers) for inspection. Later that day, the Coast Guard cleared the vessel to resume operations.

March 16 Before departing Woods Hole at 10:45 a.m., the Captain and Pilot of the M/V Woods

Hole noticed a problem with the on-board operating system. No passengers or vehicles had boarded the vessel, and it was decided to cancel the trip. The Authority’s


4 of 50

maintenance staff along with Coast Guard inspectors concluded that the Authority needed to have the equipment vendor run diagnostic tests.

March 17 The diagnostic tests were concluded late Saturday afternoon, and the vessel was once

again cleared for service. Meanwhile, in the morning, a wire on one of the three newly installed ship service generators on the M/V Martha’s Vineyard came loose and began to arc. One of the two other generators was brought on line and Senesco was notified of the issue with the other generator. Because the M/V Martha’s Vineyard has three generators on board, it was able to continuing operating with the other two generators.

At approximately 8:45 p.m., the M/V Martha’s Vineyard lost power to its main engines and generators approximately 15 minutes into its 45-minute trip from Vineyard Haven to Woods Hole. An emergency generator maintained power to the vessel but was not able to generate propulsion or heat. The anchor was dropped to keep the vessel from drifting. There were 72 passengers, 11 crew members, and three food concession employees on board.

The Coast Guard dispatched two vessels to the scene and the first of three tugboats arrived at approximately 10:00 p.m. to provide assistance if needed. During the intervening time, the M/V Woods Hole was on the scene as well. It was planned to have the three tugboats escort the vessel to Woods Hole. However, after concluding that the main engine could not be re-started, the vessel was towed back to Vineyard Haven, arriving there shortly before 2:00 a.m.

All of the passengers disembarked without incident, and the Authority arranged for hotel accommodations for those who needed lodging until they were able to travel to Woods Hole on Sunday.

March 18 On Sunday, it was determined that the vessel’s main fuel oil transfer pump was not

generating enough pressure to transfer fuel properly, which led to the vessel losing power. After undergoing sea trials late Sunday afternoon with the back-up fuel transfer pump, and further inspection by the Coast Guard, the vessel was cleared to return to service on Monday beginning with its 7:00 a.m. scheduled trip from Woods Hole.

It also was determined that the issue with the fuel transfer pump had begun earlier in the day on Saturday, March 17, when a wire on one of the newly installed ship service generators came loose and began to arc. The pump was connected to the generator and would have been required to be reset once the backup generator was brought on line. Unfortunately, the alarm for the fuel oil day tank to the control panel was not activated and the pressure gauge on the pump did not provide sufficient detail to warn the engineer on board of a problem. That situation has now been rectified by adding an alarm setting for the tank and installing a new pressure gauge for the pump.

Meanwhile, on the M/V Woods Hole, the vessel’s Captain and Pilot noted an anomaly with the transfer of controls, and the Coast Guard decided that the vessel could continue to provide service if it were maintained in only one of the operating modes available to


5 of 50

the crew until some of the equipment was replaced. The SSA replaced the center controller head in the bridge console on Sunday night, and the equipment vendor sent it for bench testing.

March 19 The anomaly did not reoccur during any of the docking and sea trials the SSA

conducted without passengers on board, but the SSA has continued to operate the vessel in one operating mode when it is in service until the results of the bench test are received.

March 20 At the end of its operating day, the M/V Martha’s Vineyard had an additional generator

issue that night, and the Coast Guard issued a “no sail” order. March 21 The vessel was taken out of service for additional work and testing, and was transported

to the SSA’s Fairhaven vessel maintenance facility. It was expected to be out of service for up to a week.

March 22 When loading for its 5:00 p.m. trip from Vineyard Haven to Woods Hole, an indicator

light went off on the console of the M/V Woods Hole. The vessel’s passengers and vehicles were transferred to the M/V Katama for transit to Woods Hole.

At approximately 7:30 p.m. the Coast Guard permitted the M/V Woods Hole to go to Woods Hole. When transiting over from Vineyard Haven to Woods Hole the M/V Woods Hole experienced issues with the propeller pitch controls. The captain compensated for the lack of response and was able to make safe passage back to Woods Hole slip #1 at around 8:30pm.

A Coast Guard inspector was onboard around 9:00pm. Following review of the situation with SSA staff, as well as a conference call with the controllable pitch system manufacturer, it was determined that the vessel needed to be taken to Fairhaven for an inspection of the shaft. As a result, the vessel was expected to be out of service until late Saturday at the earliest.

March 23 The M/V Woods Hole was expected to be out of service until at least late Sunday. Work

continued on the M/V Martha’s Vineyard and it was now expected to be back in service as early as late Monday

March 24 The SSA’s engineering department and the vendor’s technician determined that the

check valves had broken in the M/V Woods Hole’s port propeller shaft. After obtaining newer models of the valves, the technician installed the replacement valves for both the port and starboard shafts and reassembled the units.

The SSA’s engineering department and a technician for the vendor of the M/V Martha’s Vineyard’s generator which failed this past week identified the parts of the switchboard which require replacement. Work on that vessel was expected to be completed so that the Coast Guard can conduct its inspection of the vessel on Monday. As a result, the SSA anticipated that the M/V Martha’s Vineyard would be able to return to service on


6 of 50

Tuesday. Until its return, the M/V Sankaty was to continue to provide service in place of the M/V Martha’s Vineyard according to its published schedule. Meanwhile, the M/V Island Home was scheduled to return to service today, but was still in the SSA’s Fairhaven vessel maintenance facility. Part of the delay, which was then expected to be six days, was attributable to delays in the shipyard.

March 25 After inspecting the repairs made to the M/V Woods Hole and taking the vessel on sea

trials, the United States Coast Guard cleared the vessel to return to service. It left the SSA Fairhaven vessel maintenance facility and resumed its published schedule beginning with its 3:45 p.m. trip from Woods Hole to Vineyard Haven.

March 26 The M/V Woods Hole provided its regularly scheduled service without any further

operating issues.

Work on the M/V Martha’s Vineyard was completed so that the Coast Guard can conduct its inspection of the vessel. But the Coast Guard required that the SSA submit the updated testing procedures for the vessel’s new switchboard to the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety Center for their review before the tests are conducted. As a result, the SSA now anticipated that the tests would be completed the next day and that the M/V Martha’s Vineyard would be able to return to service on Wednesday.

March 27 Prior to the M/V Woods Hole’s 5:00 p.m. departure from Vineyard Haven, an alarm

code went off in the vessel’s control panel. Even though the Captain had experienced no loss of control or power, the Coast Guard was appropriately notified and the vessel was taken out of service until this issue is investigated. It was taken to the SSA’s Fairhaven vessel maintenance facility with a tug escort later that night.

The M/V Martha’s Vineyard was cleared to return to service late this afternoon. It left Fairhaven around 6:00 p.m. and after it arrived in Woods Hole around 7:30 p.m., it resumed providing service according to its published schedule (although leaving late).

March 28 During the morning’s engine start-up for the M/V Martha’s Vineyard in Vineyard

Haven, the breaker for the vessel’s steering pump malfunctioned. The chief engineer on board the vessel recycled the breaker and was able to get the pump back on line, but the SSA cancelled the M/V Martha’s Vineyard’s trips in order to assess the situation.

SSA engineering and maintenance department personnel and the manufacturer’s technician determined that a breaker in the electrical panel of the M/V Martha’s Vineyard needed to be replaced. The SSA expected that the new breaker would be delivered, installed and tested in time for the vessel to be inspected and undergo sea trials with the Coast Guard early the next morning; but as a result the SSA had to cancel all of the M/V Martha’s Vineyard’s remaining trips today, as well as its 6:00 a.m. trip tomorrow from Vineyard Haven.


7 of 50

March 29 Around 6:00 a.m. in the morning, the Coast Guard inspected and conducted sea trials of the M/V Martha’s Vineyard, and then cleared the vessel to return to service. The M/V Martha’s Vineyard then resumed operating its published schedule beginning with its 7:00 a.m. trip from Woods Hole (although leaving 10 minutes late). Later that same day, the crew had an issue with the bow doors, which resulted in a delay of up to an hour for trips after 6:00 p.m.

While undergoing a Coast Guard inspection, it was determined that there was an issue

with one of the M/V Island Home’s bow thrusters. The issue required the system technician to re-install the software program, but he was out of the country at that time.

Meanwhile, technical representatives from both Hundested Propeller and Prime Mover Controls were called in to investigate the cause of the alarm on the M/V Woods Hole and, after they examined and tested the control system, the representatives found everything to be in good order. All filters were changed on both reduction gears (i.e., 2 pc. suction filter, 1 pc. high pressure filter for clutch, and 1 pc. high pressure filter for pitch on each reduction gear) even though nothing abnormal was found. The SSA also took the vessel on light ship sea trials with both technical representatives on board to monitor the system and advise while the SSA engaged in repeated maneuvers in an attempt to have the alarm activate again and the system switch to the secondary (backup) Actuator driver signals. After the light ship sea trials, the vessel’s gear was examined, including the hydraulic check valves that had recently been replaced. All of the valves were found to be in good order.

March 31 The SSA conducted additional sea trials of the M/V Woods Hole with a simulated cargo

load similar to what had been on board when the alarm activated on March 27. As with the previous light ship sea trials, both technical representatives were on board to monitor the system and advise while the SSA engaged in repeated maneuvers in an attempt to have the alarm activate again and the system switch to the secondary (backup) Actuator driver signals. Throughout the entire additional sea trials, the system and all of the vessel’s equipment were fully responsive and operational.

Meanwhile, in the late afternoon, what originated as a breaker tripping on the MV Martha's Vineyard’s bow thruster was ultimately diagnosed as a control gear failure to release. The vessel’s 5:00 p.m. trip to the island and its corresponding 6:15 p.m. trip off-island were cancelled as the SSA’s maintenance staff addressed the situation.

April 1 The SSA submits a plan to the Coast Guard proposing certain conditions under which

the M/V Woods Hole would be allowed to be placed back into service, including additional sea trials with the Coast Guard the following day, then operating the vessel on the Nantucket route without passengers for two days with the technical representatives on board, and then having the vessel resume its regularly scheduled service on the Martha’s Vineyard route on April 5.

April 2 The Coast Guard clears the M/V Woods Hole to return to service. Since then, there

have been no reported issues with any of the vessel’s equipment.


8 of 50

The system technician for the M/V Island Home’s bow thruster arrives late at night. April 3 Following repairs to the M/V Island Home, the Coast Guard again returns for an

inspection and sea trial, but additional recently discovered and unreported existing issues still prevent the vessel from being cleared for service.

April 5 The Coast Guard clears the M/V Island Home to return to service. Since then, there

have been no reported issues with any of the vessel’s equipment. May 5 When the M/V Martha’s Vineyard was backing out of Woods Hole Slip 2 for its 5:00

p.m. trip to Vineyard Haven, it temporarily lost power due to a fuel issue with its generator and had to drop anchor until it was able to restart its engines and proceed back into the slip. It was later moved to Slip 3 where the fuel issue with the generator was resolved. The vessel was scheduled to undergo sea trials the following morning in order to be cleared to return to service.

May 6 The Coast Guard clears the M/V Martha’s Vineyard to return to service. May 11 The M/V Governor was scheduled to return to service today, but was still in the SSA’s

Fairhaven vessel maintenance facility. May 16 The Coast Guard clears the M/V Governor to return to service. C. The SSA’s Inadequate Public Communications. During this unprecedented series of service disruptions, the SSA was justifiably criticized for both the lack of information and the inaccurate information it was providing the traveling public, But even before then, the SSA was aware that its communications need to be significantly improved and, for this purpose, at the March 20, 2018 Board meeting, the SSA’s Board authorized the creation of a new “Communications Director” position. The SSA anticipates filling that position in early June 2018 with a candidate who has extensive experience and demonstrated talent in media relations, crisis communications, social media outreach and public affairs. The consulting firm awarded this Contract will also provide the SSA’s new Communications Director with independent advice and recommendations regarding how the SSA’s communications should be improved. The SSA also has proposed establishing an Operations and Communications Center at its new administrative offices in Falmouth, which would be manned during all hours of the SSA’s operations and could therefore monitor the status of all of the SSA’s operations and immediately disseminate information about any operational issues as soon as they arise. Not only would the Center have telephone, email and text communications with each of the SSA’s terminals, facilities and vessels, but it also would have television screens showing the images then being recorded by all of the SSA’s security cameras at all of those locations, thereby allowing the employees at the Center to see directly what is actually transpiring at each location in real time.


9 of 50

D. Recent Website Outages. Earlier this year, the SSA also had several issues with its website. On January 11, 2018, the SSA’s website slowed to a crawl (but did not crash) when it began

processing the usual large number of initial reservation requests from the general public for travel during the SSA’s 2018 Summer Operating Schedules. Although the problem was initially thought to be due to a hardware issue, it turned out to be due to a “configuration” issue which was solved by changing a software setting that increased the number of customers who could then simultaneously connect to the SSA’s web reservation system. Since then, the SSA has also made several enhancements to its processing environment, and has put in place several hardware and software improvements to increase the system’s performance and reliability. Such improvements continue to be made on an ongoing basis, and the SSA continues to monitor both the system’s performance and customers’ experience with it.

On March 9, 2018, due to an extremely active “Trip Alert” email pattern after several

periods of service disruptions, the SSA became aware that a number of its emails were being blocked by email providers and, as a result, not being delivered in a timely manner. To correct this situation, the staff changed the SSA’s “Trip Alert” email providers and is now using the same provider that sends its text messages, which the SSA tracks and confirms are routinely delivered almost instantaneously. The SSA developed an implementation plan by March 19, 2018 and, after the services were tested, implementation took place on April 13, 2018. The SSA is also adding other categories of emails that will be delivered by this provider.

Also during March 2018, the SSA lost all connectivity during one of the Nor’Easter storms

and was unable to offer any services via its website. Since then, the SSA has worked to ensure that it has the appropriate redundancy so that it can avoid any loss of service in the future. Specifically, at this time the SSA is working to offer systems that will be available during regional outages in order to keep the SSA’s customers informed.

At approximately 6:00 p.m. on April 8, 2018, the SSA’s new administrative offices

suffered a power spike that also affected other area businesses. As a result, several IT systems did not respond properly and had to be rebooted. After 1-½ hours the SSA’s terminals were once again able to process reservations and payments, while the SSA’s website was unable to process any payments for 2-½ hours. Since then, the SSA has confirmed that the building’s generator will properly respond to a power outage and has added small UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) systems to communications systems that are outside of the general MIS areas.

Although the SSA thus feels that the relatively recent issues with its current IT systems have been addressed, it is now seeking independent advice and recommendations through this RFP regarding whether the architecture, operating models or any other aspects of those systems may need any fixes or modernizing in order to support whatever communications program is pursued.


10 of 50

II. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROCESS. The SSA is utilizing a RFP procurement process for this Contact. Under such a process, the selection of the most advantageous proposal will be based upon price and other evaluation factors specified in this RFP. An anticipated schedule of the RFP process is provided in Part VI herein, although it should be noted that the RFP schedule is subject to change during the RFP process. This RFP fully details the procurement process and the requirements for each proposal, and persons interested in submitting proposals for the Contract must comply with the provisions hereof. The RFP requires each consulting firm, in part, to:

1. provide a detailed description of the manner in which the consulting firm will perform its obligations under the Contract;

2. specify the price for the consulting firm’s services; and 3. state its intent, if awarded the Contract, to sign and be bound by the terms and

conditions of the Contract. Unless all proposals are rejected, the SSA shall award the Contract to the eligible and responsible consulting firm who offers the most advantageous proposal to the SSA, based upon the RFP requirements and the evaluation criteria established for the Contract. In this regard, the Total Proposal Price is only part of the evaluation process, as more fully detailed in this RFP. A. Preparation Costs. The SSA shall not be liable to any consulting firm for its proposal preparation costs or any other direct or indirect costs arising from a response to this RFP. B. Addenda to this RFP. The SSA will furnish, in the form of Addenda to this RFP, copies of any changes or additions to this RFP and any documents referred to herein or attached hereto that are made by the SSA subsequent to the date of this RFP to each person who receives a copy of this RFP. Proposals shall be submitted and evaluated in accordance with this RFP, as so added to and/or changed by the Addenda hereto. All such changes and additions shall be deemed to be incorporated in this RFP and any documents referred to herein or attached hereto. C. Reservation of Rights by the SSA. The SSA is soliciting competitive proposals pursuant to a determination that such a process best serves the interest of the SSA and the general public, and not because of any legal requirement to do so. The SSA reserves the right to accept or to reject any and all proposals, to modify or amend


11 of 51

with the consent of the consulting firm any proposal prior to acceptance, and to waive any informality, all as the SSA in its sole judgment and discretion may deem to be in its best interest.

III. THE SELECTED FIRM’S CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

The SSA anticipates that, as a result of this RFP process, it will select a consulting firm to be awarded the Contract for consulting Services to undertake a comprehensive review of the SSA’s operations, including its vessel operations, fleet maintenance, management structure, public communications and Information Technology systems, and to make practical and effective recommendations for short-term and long-term improvements to the SSA’s operations. The selected consulting firm shall then become the “Consultant” under that Contract. A. Description of Consulting Services. The Consultant shall be required under the Contract to provide all services and deliverables necessary or appropriate to undertake its proposed review of the SSA’s operations, and to make practical and effective recommendations for short-term and long-term improvements to the SSA’s operations, as described in its proposal submitted in response to this RFP. All proposals will be carefully reviewed and evaluated by the SSA. B. Schedule of Services. Currently the SSA hopes to award the Contract by June 19, 2018, and then proceed with a schedule proposed by the Consultant that results in the issuance of a report with recommendations as soon as reasonably practicable but does not impose undue obligations on the SSA’s management staff and other employees during the schedule so that they can continue to devote the necessary time to manage and carry out the SSA’s operations. Each consulting firm, as part of its Consulting Proposal, should provide sufficiently detailed and complete information to allow the SSA to evaluate fully how the firm proposes to meet its schedule.

IV. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

A. RFP Interpretation. If a consulting firm desires an explanation, clarification or interpretation of any part of this RFP, it may submit to the SSA’s Procurement Officer, Peggy Nickerson, a written request for an interpretation thereof. To facilitate timely responses, the SSA will accept only questions during the RFP process delivered by email to the SSA’s Procurement Officer, Peggy Nickerson, whose email address is [email protected]. Questions received less than five (5) calendar days prior to the Proposal Due Date may or may not be considered, in the SSA’s sole discretion.


12 of 50

Any interpretation of this RFP or the Contract Documents will be made solely at the SSA’s option, as an Addendum to this RFP. The SSA will not be responsible for any other explanations or interpretations of this RFP or the Contract Documents. Oral explanations, interpretations or instructions given by anyone (including Ms. Nickerson) before the award of the Contract will not be binding on the SSA. Proponents are advised to rely only upon the matters contained in this RFP and any Addenda to the RFP subsequently issued by the SSA. While questions may be answered by the SSA’s representatives (to the extent appropriate and possible), all issues raised which, in the opinion of the SSA, materially affect the competitive proposal process will be clarified in writing by the SSA in the form of Addenda to this RFP, with copies sent to all persons who have requested and received a copy of the RFP. B. Proposal Forms. Each proponent shall submit a separate Consulting Proposal and Financial Proposal in the manner described in this RFP. In order to be deemed responsive, proposals must be made on a copy of the Consulting Proposal and Financial Proposal forms furnished by the SSA, with such attachments as are necessary to provide all of the information sought in those forms. Proponents may make their proposals in a manner other than on copies of the SSA’s Consulting Proposal and Financial Proposal forms only if they clearly provide all of the information sought in those forms. If proposals are submitted in paper form, the SSA prefers that they be presented in loose-leaf, three-ring binders, with foldout not exceeding 11” x 17”. If drawings exceeding 11” x 17” are included in a proposal, the SSA asks that the proponent also provide reproducible copies thereof. Elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper and bindings, and expensive visual or other presentation aids are not necessary either. Each proposal shall be signed by the consulting firm. If a proposal is submitted by a corporation, it shall be signed in the name of the corporation, followed by identification of the position the signer holds in the corporation. If a proposal is submitted by a partnership, it shall be so stated and the proposal shall contain the names of each partner and shall be signed in the firm name, followed by the signatures of the partners. If a proposal is submitted by a joint venture, it shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the joint venture agreement, documents evidencing the authority of all parties to the joint venture to submit the proposal, and a financial statement for the joint venture describing in detail the individual contributions of all parties to the joint venture. All information, prices, acknowledgments and signatures shall be legibly entered in the spaces provided on the Consulting Proposal and Financial Proposal forms (or on the consulting firm’s attachments thereto), typed or in ink, and without alteration. Proposals which are incomplete or contain alterations may be rejected as non-responsive. Misrepresentations in a proposal may be cause for rejection of a proposal, cancellation of Contract award or termination of the Contract for cause.


13 of 50

C. Acknowledgments. Each consulting firm must carefully examine this RFP, including all of its exhibits (which consist of, among other things, the proposal forms). The submission of a proposal shall be conclusive evidence that the consulting firm has made its examinations and understands all requirements for the performance of the Contract Work. By submitting a proposal, each consulting firm further warrants, agrees and acknowledges that it:

(1) has taken steps reasonably necessary to ascertain the nature and scope of the Contract Work, and understands that failure to do so will not be justification for a change order, protest or claim against the Authority;

(2) has satisfied itself as to the adequacy of time allowed for the completion of the Contract

Work; (3) has not discovered any patent ambiguities, other than those identified in writing to the

SSA, that would be discovered by a prudent consulting firm in preparing its proposal; (4) is familiar and will comply with all Federal, State and local laws, ordinances and

regulations which might affect those engaged in the Contract Work; and (5) has read, fully understands and intends to sign the Contract, as the same may have been

modified during the RFP process. Each consulting firm agrees that the SSA shall not be liable to it on any claim for additional payment or additional time or any claim whatsoever if the claim directly or indirectly results from the consulting firm’s failure to investigate and familiarize itself sufficiently with the conditions under which the Contract is to be performed. No claim shall be allowed because of any ambiguity in the Contract if: (i) the consulting firm discovers an ambiguity, but fails to notify the SSA; or (ii) the consulting firm failed to discover a patent ambiguity that would have been discovered by a reasonably prudent consulting firm in preparing its proposal. Any failure of a consulting firm to take the actions acknowledged above shall not relieve the consulting firm from responsibility of estimating properly the difficulty and cost of successfully performing the Contract Work, or from proceeding to successfully perform the Contract Work without additional expense to the SSA. D. Total Contract Price. The consulting firm’s proposed Total Contract Price for the work covered under this Contract and subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein is to be set forth in its Financial Proposal. There will be no other charges or service fees applicable to the SSA in connection with this Contract, except as explicitly provided herein. The Total Contract Price shall include any and all sales, use


14 of 50

or excise taxes with respect to the Contract lawfully assessed or levied prior to or concurrently with delivery and acceptance of the items covered under this Contract. In this regard, the SSA notes that, as a public instrumentality of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it is exempt from Massachusetts sales, use and excise taxes. However, whether or not the SSA is similarly exempt, in whole or in part, from taxes assessed or levied by States other than Massachusetts (or by counties, municipalities or other local authorities within such other States) depends upon the applicable law of each of those other States, as to which the SSA makes no representations. E. Submission of Proposals and Due Date. Proposals for the Contract will be accepted until 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at the SSA’s Procurement Office, which is located on the second floor of the SSA’s Administrative Offices, 228 Palmer Avenue, Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS BY EMAIL: Instead of delivering paper versions of their proposals to the SSA, consulting firms may submit their proposals electronically. Proposals transmitted via email must be sent to: [email protected] and no other email address. The proposals must be attached and formatted as follows: File format must be Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 or higher. Total file size of any attachment or groups of attachments for any email must not exceed

five megabytes. Emails with total attachment file sizes larger than five megabytes must be split into separate emails.

Attached file names must include the contract name and a partial name of the consulting

firm (for example: Company ABC – Contract 06-2018 – File 1.pdf). File extensions must be included and be .pdf.

If more than one file is being sent both the file name and the email name should state the

file number and the total number of files being submitted. For example: File 1 of 5. Email subject lines must contain the same information (but without the .pdf). For example:

Company ABC – Contract 06-2018 – Files 1 through 4 of 4. If more than one email is being sent, the subject line must also state the email number and

the total number of emails being sent. For example: Email 1 of 3. A consulting firm’s Financial Proposal must be sent in a separate email from its Consulting

Proposal. The SSA assumes no responsibility for the successful transmission or receipt of proposals submitted electronically. Accordingly, consulting firms submitting their proposals electronically are encouraged to do so well in advance of the deadline for the submission of proposals and to communicate with Procurement Officer Peggy Nickerson (at her email address and not


15 of 50

[email protected]) to confirm that the SSA has received all parts of each proposal. Proposals or any parts thereof that were returned to the sender as non-deliverable or not delivered, as well as proposals or any parts thereof received after the deadline for the submission of proposals will be rejected as non-responsive to the RFP. Electronic delivery of any proposals to any email address other than [email protected] will NOT constitute receipt by the Authority. It is the sole responsibility of proponents to ensure that proposals are received electronically at the proper email address prior to the stated deadline. If a consulting firm chooses to delivers its proposal to the SSA in paper form instead of electronically, the proposal must comply with the following in order for it to be deemed responsive to this RFP:

1. The consulting firm must place one original and 15 copies of its Consulting Proposal (appropriately executed and providing all of the information requested therein), in a sealed envelope or other sealed container duly marked so as to identify the documents as a Consulting Proposal submitted for the Contract for Management Consulting Services to Undertake a Comprehensive Review of the SSA’s Operations.

2. That sealed envelope or container also must be accompanied by a separately sealed

envelope containing one original and 15 copies of the consulting firm’s Financial Proposal (appropriately executed and providing all of the information requested therein), which similarly must be duly marked so as to identify it as the consulting firm’s Financial Proposal submitted in connection with the Contract for Management Consulting Services to Undertake a Comprehensive Review of the SSA’s Operations, so as to avoid the disclosure of the Financial Proposal until after the SSA evaluates all Consulting Proposals submitted on the basis of criteria other than price.

3. Both the sealed envelope (or other sealed container) containing the documents

constituting the consulting firm’s Consulting Proposal and the sealed envelope containing the consulting firm’s Financial Proposal must then be placed together into another sealed envelope or other sealed container for submission to the SSA as a “Proposal Package.”

Proposal Packages may be hand delivered to the SSA on regular business days between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the SSA’s Procurement Office prior to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time on Tuesday, June 12, 2018. Such Proposal Packages may also be mailed sufficiently in advance of June 12, 2018 to ensure that they are received by the SSA before 2:00 p.m. on that date, addressed as follows: Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority Procurement Office 228 Palmer Avenue Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540


16 of 50

NOTE: Proposals or any parts thereof received in the Procurement Office after the time and date stated above will be rejected as non-responsive to this Request. Delivery of any proposals to any office, function or location other than the Procurement Office will NOT constitute receipt by the SSA. It is the sole responsibility of proponents to ensure that proposals are received at the proper location prior to the stated deadline. Proponents should plan accordingly for timely delivery. Regardless of whether a consulting firm’s proposal is submitted in paper form or electronically, information submitted separately will not be considered by the SSA in evaluating the proposals. Faxed proposals will not be accepted. Proponents are advised that the SSA is a public entity and that all proposals submitted in response to this RFP will become public records, unless specifically exempted under Mass. G.L. c. 4, § 7, clause twenty-sixth. F. Corrections, Modifications and Withdrawal of Proposals. A consulting firm may correct, modify or withdraw a proposal by written notice received in the Procurement Office of the SSA prior to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time on Tuesday, June 12, 2018. After the proposals are opened, however, no proposal will be allowed to be withdrawn for any reason whatsoever between the time for the final submission of proposals and June 30, 2018. Nor will a consulting firm be allowed to change the price or any other provision of a proposal in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the SSA or fair competition. The SSA may, but is not required to, waive minor informalities in a proposal or allow the consulting firm to correct them. If a mistake and the intended proposal are clearly evident on the face of the proposal documents the SSA may correct the mistake to reflect the intended correct proposal and so notify the consulting firm in writing, and the consulting firm may not withdraw the proposal. A consulting firm may withdraw a proposal if a mistake is clearly evident on the face of the proposal documents but the intended correct proposal is not similarly evident.

V. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS AND CONTRACT AWARD Because the SSA has determined that the selection of the most advantageous proposal for the Contract requires comparative judgments of factors in addition to price, all factors will be carefully considered by the SSA in evaluating proposals received and in awarding any Contract, and the award of the Contract will not be made solely on the basis of price alone. A. Proposal Opening and Evaluation Procedure. At 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time on June 12, 2018, the SSA’s General Manager shall not open the proposals publicly, but shall open the Proposal Packages in the presence of one or more witnesses. At the opening of the Proposal Packages, the General Manager shall prepare a


17 of 50

register of proposals which shall include the name of each consulting firm and the number of modifications, if any, received. The register of proposals shall be open for public inspection. In addition, at that time, the General Manager shall open each consulting firm’s Consulting Proposal, but shall not open the sealed envelopes containing the copies of the consulting firms’ Financial Proposals; instead, the Financial Proposals shall remain sealed in a secured place until after the consulting firms’ Consulting Proposals are evaluated on the basis of criteria other than price. The General Manager shall then forward the Consulting Proposals to the SSA’s Members, who shall be responsible for the evaluation of the Consulting Proposals on the basis of criteria other than price, and he shall also forward the Consulting Proposals to the Port Council members. (As previously stated, the proponents’ Financial Proposals shall remain sealed until after the SSA’s Members evaluate the Consulting Proposals on the basis of criteria other than price, and the contents of such Financial Proposals otherwise may not be disclosed by the consulting firms to any of the SSA’s Members, Port Council members, employees or agents of the SSA, either directly or indirectly, before the preparation of the aforesaid evaluations.) The SSA’s Members shall together evaluate the Consulting Proposals at a duly constituted meeting in public session, and their evaluations shall be based solely on the non-price criteria set forth in this RFP. During the meeting, the SSA’s Members shall specify:

1. for each category of information provided by a consulting firm in its Consulting Proposal in response to this RFP (as set forth in the Consulting Proposal form furnished by the SSA), a rating of the Consulting Proposal as highly advantageous, advantageous, not advantageous or unacceptable, and the reasons for the rating;

2. a composite rating for each Consulting Proposal, and the reasons for the rating; and 3. revisions, if any, to any provision of each Consulting Proposal which should be

obtained by negotiation prior to awarding a Contract to the consulting firm submitting the proposal.

In the course of evaluating the Consulting Proposals, the SSA’s Members may, but are not required to, request any consulting firm or consulting firms to make presentations explaining their Consulting Proposals, the contents of which will be considered in the evaluation process. However, the presentations may not change or add to the provisions of such proposals or otherwise affect such proposals in a manner prejudicial to fair competition. The SSA’s Members may also ask for and receive the advice and assistance of any Port Council members, management staff members and/or other persons. After the SSA’s Members have finished the aforesaid evaluations, the General Manager shall open the Financial Proposals at the same meeting in public session or a subsequent meeting in public session. At the opening of the Financial Proposals, the General Manager shall prepare a register of such Financial Proposals which shall include the name of the consulting firm and the number of modifications, if any, received. The register of Financial Proposals shall be open for public inspection.


18 of 50

After the opening of the Financial Proposals, at the same meeting in public session or a subsequent meeting in public session, the SSA’s Members shall select up to three finalists from among the responsible and eligible consulting firms for the Contract taking into consideration price and the evaluations of the Consulting Proposals. The SSA’s Members shall also rank the finalists in their recommended order of qualification and explain the reasons for their choice and ranking of the finalists. In the course of selecting and ranking the finalists, the SSA’s Members may again ask for and receive the advice and assistance of any Port Council members, management staff members and/or other persons. B. Award of Contract. The SSA’s Members shall then award the Contract by a majority vote at a duly constituted public meeting, and may condition an award on successful negotiation of any revisions contained in the evaluations or subsequently suggested by the SSA’s Members after the opening of the Financial Proposals. If a selected consulting firm declines to enter into a Contract with the SSA, the SSA’s Members may then award the Contract to another consulting firm, again, subject to such conditions contained in the evaluations or suggested by the SSA’s Members. The General Manager shall deliver written notice of the award to the selected consulting firm by June 30, 2018. The parties may extend the time for acceptance by mutual agreement. C. Confirmation of Information Submitted by Consulting firms. In evaluating the Consulting Proposals, the SSA may conduct such investigation as the SSA deems necessary and appropriate to verify the information submitted and ultimately confirm whether a consulting firm should be awarded the Contract. The SSA also may conduct such investigation at any time prior to the execution of the Contract, and a consulting firm’s failure to respond to requests for information in connection with any such investigation will be sufficient reason to consider the consulting firm’s proposal non-responsive. In addition, by submitting a proposal hereunder, the consulting firm authorizes the SSA to obtain any information pertinent to such proposal, including but not limited to information from any of the consulting firm’s current or past clients, whether identified in a proposal or not. Prior to evaluation, the SSA will notify the consulting firm of any such information so obtained. Such information will be afforded evaluation consideration to the same extent as comparable information provided in a proposal, consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in this RFP. D. Execution of Contract. Within five (5) business days after the date of Contract award, the successful consulting firm shall deliver to the SSA a Contract appropriately executed by a duly authorized officer or agent of the consulting firm.


19 of 50

No proposal shall bind the SSA until it signs the Contract, notwithstanding a notice of selection and/or Contract award. The consulting firm shall bear all risks for any Contract Work begun or any materials ordered before the SSA signs the Contract. E. Failure to Execute Contract. If the successful consulting firm fails or refuses to sign the Contract, the SSA may then award the Contract to a responsible and eligible consulting firm who offers the SSA the second most advantageous proposal. If such second consulting firm fails to return the requirement documents as stated above within the time provided after the date of Contract award, the Contract may then be awarded successively in like manner to the remaining next most advantageous consulting firms until the above requirements are met or the remaining proposals are rejected. F. Reservation of Rights by the SSA. The SSA is soliciting competitive proposals pursuant to a determination that such a process best serves the interest of the Authority and the general public, and not because of any legal requirement to do so. The SSA reserves the right to accept or to reject any and all proposals, to modify or amend with the consent of the proponent any proposal prior to acceptance, and to waive any informality, all as the SSA in its sole judgment and discretion may deem to be in its best interest.

VI. ANTICIPATED RFP SCHEDULE The anticipated schedule of the RFP process is set forth below:

05/18/2018 Issuance of Request for Proposals

06/12/2018 Deadline for Submission of Proposals 06/19/2018 Completion of Evaluations of Consulting Proposals

06/??/2018 Opening of Financial Proposals, Ranking of Finalists, and Award of Contract

NOTE: The above RFP Schedule is subject to change during the RFP process.


20 of 50

VII. EXHIBITS TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS A. Letters received by the SSA from public officials on the island of Martha’s Vineyard B. The SSA’s Repair Schedule, as of October 17, 2017, for its vessels from 2017 into 2021. C. Drawing of the SSA’s Vessel Maintenance Facility, located in Fairhaven, Massachusetts. D. Consulting Proposal Form. E. Financial Proposal Form. F. Non-Price Evaluation Criteria.


21 of 50

EXHIBIT A


28 of 50

EXHIBIT B

CO

ID

RY-

DO

CK

VESS

ELD

ueD

ueST

AR

TFI

NIS

HST

AR

TFI

NIS

HST

AR

TFI

NIS

HST

AR

TFI

NIS

H

M/V

MAR

THA'

S VI

NEY

ARD

12/2

8/20

1720

1705

/16/

2017

05/2

4/20

17(la

st d

ry d

ock

12-0

1-20

14)

Mid

-Life

09/0

7/20

1701

/31/

2018

02/0

1/20

1803

/02/

2018

(Req

uire

d by

11-

14-2

017)

05/1

7/20

1805

/22/

2018

09/0

8/20

1810

/22/

2018

05/1

5/20

1905

/23/

2019

2019

09/0

9/20

1910

/20/

2019

10/2

1/20

1911

/22/

2019

05/1

5/20

2005

/20/

2020

&09

/09/

2020

10/2

0/20

2005

/16/

2021

05/2

4/20

2120

2109

/10/

2021

10/2

1/20

2110

/22/

2021

11/2

3/20

21

M/V

NAN

TUC

KET

10/2

6/20

17

(last

dry

doc

k 10

/16/

2015

)(R

equi

red

by 0

9/30

/201

8)04

/01/

2017

05/1

5/20

17

2018

03/0

3/20

1804

/10/

2018

04/1

1/20

1805

/16/

2018

&20

1902

/23/

2019

04/1

1/20

1904

/12/

2019

05/1

4/20

19

&03

/31/

2020

05/1

4/20

20

2021

02/2

4/20

2104

/12/

2021

04/1

3/20

2105

/15/

2021

M/V

EAG

LE02

/17/

2018

(last

dry

doc

k 02

/29/

2016

)(R

equi

red

by 0

1/15

/201

9)05

/31/

2017

06/1

4/20

1712

/06/

2017

01/1

0/20

1805

/29/

2018

06/1

2/20

1820

1810

/23/

2018

12/0

6/20

1812

/07/

2018

01/0

8/20

1905

/30/

2019

06/1

0/20

19&

12/0

2/20

1901

/09/

2020

05/2

7/20

2006

/04/

2020

2020

10/2

1/20

2012

/07/

2020

12/0

8/20

2001

/09/

2021

06/0

3/20

2106

/11/

2021

12/0

3/20

2101

/10/

2022

M/V

ISLA

ND

HO

ME

03/3

1/20

18

(last

dry

doc

k 04

-25-

2015

)(R

equi

red

by 0

4-16

-201

8)20

1801

/11/

2018

02/2

1/20

1802

/22/

2018

03/2

3/20

1806

/13/

2018

06/1

8/20

18&

01/0

9/20

1902

/22/

2019

06/1

1/20

1906

/19/

2019

2020

01/1

0/20

2002

/23/

2020

02/2

4/20

2003

/30/

2020

06/0

5/20

2006

/16/

2020

01/1

0/20

2102

/24/

2021

06/1

2/20

2106

/17/

2021

2017

- 20

21 R

epai

r Sch

edul

e as

of 1

0/17

/201

7

DR

Y-D

OC

KR

EPA

IRSP

RU

CE

UP

STA

ND

BY

STA

TUS

Rep

air 2

017-

2021

as

of 1

0-17

-17

2017

-202

0 R

epai

r Sch

edul

e as

of 1

0-17

-201

7

CO

ID

RY-

DO

CK

VESS

ELD

ueD

ueST

AR

TFI

NIS

HST

AR

TFI

NIS

HST

AR

TFI

NIS

HST

AR

TFI

NIS

H

2017

- 20

21 R

epai

r Sch

edul

e as

of 1

0/17

/201

7

DR

Y-D

OC

KR

EPA

IRSP

RU

CE

UP

STA

ND

BY

STA

TUS

M/V

WO

OD

S H

OLE

12/2

9/20

17

(last

dry

doc

k 05

-27-

2016

)05

/31/

2017

06/0

5/20

17(R

equi

red

by 0

5-27

-201

9)10

/28/

2017

11/1

7/20

1711

/27/

2017

12/0

5/20

1705

/11/

2018

05/2

2/20

18(C

OI)

2019

12/3

1/20

1802

/07/

2019

02/0

8/20

1903

/15/

2019

12/0

4/20

1812

/31/

2018

&01

/10/

2020

02/2

3/20

20

2021

01/0

7/20

2102

/14/

2021

02/1

5/20

2103

/16/

2021

M/V

SAN

KATY

11/2

2/20

17

(last

dry

doc

k 11

-14-

2016

)(R

equi

red

by 1

0-30

-201

9)10

/31/

2017

11/2

0/20

1711

/27/

2017

12/1

7/20

1701

/05/

2018

04/0

1/20

1805

/23/

2018

05/2

8/20

1820

1809

/08/

2018

10/1

9/20

1810

/20/

2018

11/2

7/20

1811

/28/

2018

12/3

1/20

18&

2020

M/V

KAT

AMA

05/1

6/20

21

(last

dry

doc

k 03

-13-

2017

)20

1701

/04/

2017

02/2

0/20

1702

/21/

2017

03/3

1/20

1704

/01/

2017

05/3

0/20

17(R

equi

red

by 0

3-31

-201

9)&

12/1

8/20

1701

/04/

2018

2018

05/2

3/20

1807

/09/

2018

07/1

0/20

1808

/08/

2018

03/2

4/20

1805

/10/

2018

10/2

3/20

1811

/15/

2018

&05

/30/

2019

07/0

1/20

19

2020

05/2

7/20

2007

/07/

2020

07/0

8/20

2008

/06/

2020

M/V

GAY

HEA

D01

/29/

2020

(last

dry

doc

k 01

-24-

2016

)(R

equi

red

by 0

1-24

-201

8)?

2017

06/0

7/20

1708

/01/

2017

08/0

2/20

1709

/06/

2017

&08

/09/

2018

09/0

7/20

1811

/16/

2018

12/0

3/20

18

2019

07/0

2/20

1908

/12/

2019

08/1

3/20

1909

/08/

2019

&08

/07/

2020

09/1

1/20

20

2021

Rep

air 2

017-

2021

as

of 1

0-17

-17

2017

-202

0 R

epai

r Sch

edul

e as

of 1

0-17

-201

7

CO

ID

RY-

DO

CK

VESS

ELD

ueD

ueST

AR

TFI

NIS

HST

AR

TFI

NIS

HST

AR

TFI

NIS

HST

AR

TFI

NIS

H

2017

- 20

21 R

epai

r Sch

edul

e as

of 1

0/17

/201

7

DR

Y-D

OC

KR

EPA

IRSP

RU

CE

UP

STA

ND

BY

STA

TUS

M/V

GO

VER

NO

R05

/10/

2018

2016

(last

dry

doc

k 05

-16-

2016

)&

03/1

7/20

1705

/15/

2017

(Req

uire

d by

02-

21-2

019)

10/1

9/20

1711

/29/

2017

2018

03/3

0/20

1805

/10/

2018

&03

/19/

2019

05/1

4/20

19

2020

02/2

4/20

2004

/05/

2020

04/0

6/20

2005

/14/

2020

M/V

IYAN

OU

GH

04/0

7/20

21

(last

dry

doc

k 04

-01-

2016

)(R

equi

red

by 0

4-30

-201

8)01

/05/

2018

02/1

5/20

18

2018

02/1

6/20

1803

/20/

2018

03/2

1/20

1804

/01/

2018

01/0

6/20

1903

/30/

2019

&01

/07/

2020

02/1

4/20

20

2020

02/2

1/20

2003

/09/

2020

03/1

0/20

2003

/30/

2020

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Rep

air 2

017-

2021

as

of 1

0-17

-17

2017

-202

0 R

epai

r Sch

edul

e as

of 1

0-17

-201

7


32 of 50

EXHIBIT C


34 of 50

EXHIBIT D


35 of 50

CONSULTING PROPOSAL


TO UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY’S OPERATIONS

CONTRACT NO. 06-2018

[All items must be completed using this form. Additional sheets referenced by item number in the order in which they appear on this form should be used when more space is necessary for a full answer. Charts, diagrams and exhibits may be utilized if desired. A Proponent may make its Consulting Proposal in a manner other than on a copy of this form only if the Proponent clearly provides all of the information sought in this form.] Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority 228 Palmer Avenue Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540 Gentlemen and Ladies: We hereby submit the following Consulting Proposal for the proposed Contract for Management Consulting Services to Undertake a Comprehensive Review of the Steamship Authority’s Operations (the “Contract”) -- Contract No. 06-2018 -- in strict compliance with the Request for Proposals therefor, which is made a part of this proposal by reference thereto, as stated below: A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. 1. Name of Proponent: ______________________________________________________ being a: ______________________________________________________ (corporation, partnership, individual or other) 2. If the Proponent is a corporation, the State under whose laws the Proponent was

organized and is existing is: ________________________________________________

If the Proponent is a partnership, attach a copy of the Proponent's Partnership Agreement, if any, together with any amendments thereto. If no written Partnership Agreement exists,


36 of 50

describe the material terms of the partnership, including the date that the partnership was formed.

3. Address of Principal Office: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Official Representative: ________________________________________________ Telephone Number: ________________________________________________ Fax Number: ________________________________________________ 4. Provide the names and addresses of all persons interested in this proposal. (Note: Provide

the first and last names in full. If the Proponent is a corporation, provide the names of the corporation's officers and directors, as well as stockholders who own more than 5% of the corporation's outstanding shares of stock; if the Proponent is a partnership, provide the names of all partners.)

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Has the Proponent or any person identified in your answer to Question No. 4 been

convicted of any felony? Yes or No: _________________ (If Yes, Explain) 6. Is the Proponent or any person identified in your answer to Question No. 4 a Member,

officer, employee or agent of the Authority? Yes or No: _________________ (If Yes, Explain)


37 of 50

7. During the past seven years, has the Proponent or any person identified in your answer to

Question No. 4 been the subject of a petition for bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization? Yes or No: _________________ (If Yes, Explain) 8. Has the Proponent or any person identified in your answer to Question No. 4 been

convicted or finally adjudicated of any of the following:

(a) a criminal offense incident to obtaining or attempting to obtain a public or private contract (including but not limited to illegal restraint of trade or collusive bidding), or in the performance of such contract (including but not limited to falsification of information or submission of deceptive or fraudulent statements in connection with the prequalification, bidding or performance phase of a contract);

(b) a criminal offense involving embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or

destruction of records, receiving stolen property or any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty which seriously and directly affects the Proponent's or the person's responsibility as a public contractor;

(c) a violation of state or federal laws regulating campaign contributions; (d) a violation of state or federal law regulating hours of labor, prevailing wages,

minimum wages, overtime pay, equal pay, child labor or workers' compensation; (e) repeated or aggravated violation of any state or federal law regulating labor

relations or occupational health or safety; (f) repeated or aggravated violation of any state or federal law prohibiting

discrimination in employment; or (g) repeated or aggravated violation of any state or federal environmental law?

Yes or No: _________________ (If Yes, Explain)


38 of 50

B. RELEVANT CONSULTING EXPERIENCE. 1. Provide a narrative description of the Proponent's history of experience in providing

management consulting services regarding organizations’ vessel operations, fleet maintenance, management structure, public communications and Information Technology systems, including any such services provided for operators of vehicle/passenger ferries. In the event Proponent has not provided consulting services for an organization’s vessel operations and/or fleet maintenance (or in addition to management consulting services for organizations’ vessel operations and fleet maintenance), the Proponent can describe its history of experience in providing management consulting services regarding operations similar to vessel operations and/or fleet maintenance. The narrative should detail how the Proponent’s experience is indicative of its capability to provide such consulting services for the SSA.

2. List the three most recent clients for whom the Proponent has provided consulting services

regarding each of the following aspects of an organization’s operations:

(a) vessel operations (and/or other similar operations); and

(b) fleet maintenance (and/or other similar operations);

(c) management structure;

(d) public communications;

(e) Information Technology systems;

together with the names, addresses, contact persons, email addresses and telephone numbers of those clients, and describe the consulting services the Proponent performed for them.

C. PROPOSED PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. 1. Provide sufficiently detailed and complete information to allow the SSA to evaluate fully

how the Proponent proposes to fulfill the Consultant’s obligations under the Contract to provide management consulting services to undertake a comprehensive review of the SSA’s operations. The Proponent’s response should include the Proponent’s proposed Contract Schedule and also should identify the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract, should describe what their roles will be, and should provide their curricula vitae or descriptions of their relevant qualifications and experience.

2. Provide sufficiently detailed and complete information to allow the SSA to evaluate fully

how the Proponent proposes to meet the Proponent’s proposed Contract Schedule.


39 of 50

D. PROPOSED CONTRACT WITHOUT FINANCIAL INFORMATION.

Provide the Proponent’s proposed Contract(s) with the SSA for the provision of Proponent’s consulting services, except for the Proponent’s proposed Total Contract Price or any other information from which any aspect of the Proponent’s proposed financial compensation for its services could be identified. E. CERTIFICATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The undersigned hereby acknowledges and certifies under the penalties of perjury, to the best of his or her knowledge, information and belief, that: 1. The Proponent agrees that if its proposal is accepted by the SSA, the Proponent will enter

into a Contract with the SSA in substantially the form described in its Consulting Proposal and Financial Proposal.

2. By submission of its proposal in response to the Request for Proposals, the Proponent

authorizes the SSA to contact any and all parties who may have knowledge or information concerning the Proponent's operations, experience and background and, further, hereby authorizes all such parties to communicate such knowledge and information to the SSA.

3. In making this proposal, the Proponent has relied only upon the matters contained in the

Request for Proposals and addenda thereto which have been issued by the SSA and disseminated to all potential proponents. The Proponent has not relied upon any other representations, either written or oral, made by the SSA and/or any of its Members, officer, employees or agents.

4. The SSA is soliciting competitive proposals pursuant to a determination that such a process

best serves the interest of the SSA and the general public, and not because of any legal requirement to do so. The Proponent acknowledges the SSA’s right to accept or to reject any and all proposals prior to acceptance, and to waive any informality, all as the SSA in its sole judgment and discretion may deem to be in its best interest.

5. All of the information contained in this proposal, including all of the attachments hereto,

is true and correct.


40 of 50

6. This proposal has been made and submitted in good faith and without collusion or fraud with any other person. As used in this certification, the word “person” shall mean any natural person, business, partnership, corporation, union, committee, club or other organization, entity or group of individuals.

___________________________________ __________________________________ (Name of Person Signing Proposal) (Title of Person Signing Proposal) ___________________________________ __________________________________ (Name of Proponent) (Federal ID or Soc. Sec. No.) ___________________________________ __________________________________ (Street Address) (Telephone Number) ___________________________________ __________________________________ (Town/City, State, Zip Code) (Email Address) ______________________ __________________________________ (Date) (Signature)


41 of 50

EXHIBIT D


42 of 50

FINANCIAL PROPOSAL




[All items must be completed using this form. Additional sheets referenced by item number in the order in which they appear on this form should be used when more space is necessary for a full answer. Charts, diagrams and exhibits may be utilized if desired. A Proponent may make its Financial Proposal in a manner other than on a copy of this form only if the Proponent clearly provides all of the information sought in this form.] Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority 228 Palmer Avenue Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540 Gentlemen and Ladies: We hereby submit the following Financial Proposal for the proposed Contract for Management Consulting Services to Undertake a Comprehensive Review of the Steamship Authority’s Maintenance and Operations (the “Contract”) -- Contract No. 06-2018 -- in strict compliance with the Request for Proposals therefor (including all Addenda thereto) issued by the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority (the “SSA”), which is made a part of this proposal by reference thereto, as stated below: ______________________________________________________________________________

(Name of Proponent)

hereby proposes to furnish all labor, services and materials and perform all work required to fulfill the Consultant’s obligations under the Contract to provide management consulting services to undertake a comprehensive review of the SSA’s operations in strict accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of the above-referenced Request for Proposals (including all Addenda thereto) (the “Contract Work”), for the following Total Contract Price, which price shall be without adjustment for changes in labor, material or tax cost: ______________________________________________________________________________

(Amount in Words)

____________________________________________ ($____________________________). (Amount in Numbers)


43 of 50

The undersigned accepts and agrees to all the terms and conditions of the Request for

Proposals as fully as if they were separately repeated and agreed to in this Financial Proposal. The undersigned agrees that if its proposal is accepted by the SSA, it will enter into a Contract with the SSA as set forth in the Proponent’s Consulting Proposal and this Financial Proposal, within five (5) business days after notice of acceptance of its proposal. The undersigned further agrees: (a) that it will not withdraw the foregoing Financial Proposal prior to June 30, 2018; and (b) that in the event June 30, 2018 passes without an award of the Contract having been made by the SSA, the foregoing Financial Proposal shall remain in full force and effect for another fifteen (15) day period unless, prior to June 20, 2018, the SSA receives written notice of the withdrawal of the foregoing Financial Proposal by the undersigned.

CERTIFICATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The undersigned hereby acknowledges and certifies under the penalties of perjury, to the best of his or her knowledge, information and belief, that: 1. In making this proposal, the Proponent has relied only upon the matters contained in the

Request for Proposals and addenda thereto which have been issued by the SSA and disseminated to all potential proponents. The Proponent has not relied upon any other representations, either written or oral, made by the SSA and/or any of its Members, officer, employees or agents.

2. The SSA is soliciting competitive proposals pursuant to a determination that such a process

best serves the interest of the SSA and the general public, and not because of any legal requirement to do so. The Proponent acknowledges the SSA’s right to accept or to reject any and all proposals prior to acceptance, and to waive any informality, all as the SSA in its sole judgment and discretion may deem to be in its best interest.

3. The Proponent named herein has not, directly or indirectly, given, offered or agreed to give

any person, corporation or other entity any gift, contribution or offer of employment as an inducement for, or in connection with, the award of this Contract, except as expressly disclosed in this Financial Proposal;

4. No Member, employee or agent of the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket

Steamship Authority shall be in the employ of, or be in any way, directly or indirectly, financially interested in any partnership, corporation or association having any financial transactions connected with this Contract;

5. Pursuant to Mass. G.L. c. 7, §22C, the Proponent does not employ ten or more employees

in an office or other facility located in Northern Ireland or, if it does so employ ten or more employees there, that (a) it does not discriminate in employment, compensation or the terms, conditions and privileges of employment on account of religious or political beliefs;


44 of 50

and (b) it promotes religious tolerance within the work place and the eradication of any manifestations of religious and other illegal discrimination;

6. Pursuant to St. 1990, c. 521, §7, as amended by St. 1991, c. 329, the Proponent does not

have fifty or more employees or, if it does employ fifty or more employees, it has established a dependent care assistance program or a cafeteria plan whose benefits include a dependent care assistance program or it offers child care tuition assistance or on-site or near-site subsidized child care placements;

7. Pursuant to G.L. c. 151A, § 19A(b), the Proponent has complied with all laws of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts relating to contributions to the Massachusetts Unemployment Fund and payments in lieu of such contributions;

8. Pursuant to G.L. c. 62C, §49A, the Proponent has complied with all laws of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts relating to taxes, reporting of employees and contractors, and withholding and remitting of child support; and

9. This proposal has been made and submitted in good faith and without collusion or fraud

with any other person. As used in this certification, the word "person" shall mean any natural person, business, partnership, corporation, union, committee, club or other organization, entity or group of individuals.

___________________________________ ____________________________________ (Name of Person Signing Proposal) (Title of Person Signing Proposal) ___________________________________ ____________________________________ (Name of Proponent) (Federal ID or Soc. Sec. No.) ___________________________________ ____________________________________ (Street Address) (Telephone Number) ___________________________________ ____________________________________ (Town/City, State, Zip Code) (Email Address) ______________________ ____________________________________ (Date) (Signature)


45 of 50

EXHIBIT E


46 of 50

NON-PRICE EVALUATION CRITERIA

CONSULTING PROPOSALS



CONTRACT NO. 06-2018 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

Highly Advantageous: The Proponent and persons interested in the Proponent’s proposal have not been convicted or finally adjudicated of any of the offenses described in Section A of the Proponent’s Consulting Proposal, have not been the subject of petition for bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization within the last seven years, and are not a Member, officer, employee or agent of the SSA. Advantageous: While the Proponent and/or a person(s) interested in the Proponent’s proposal have been convicted or finally adjudicated of any of the offenses described in Section A of the Proponent’s Consulting Proposal, and/or have been the subject of petition for bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization within the last seven years, such matters were relatively minor and/or explainable, and neither the Proponent nor any person interested in the Proponent’s proposal is a Member, officer, employee or agent of the SSA. Not Advantageous: The Proponent and/or a person(s) interested in the Proponent’s proposal have been convicted or finally adjudicated of any of the offenses described in Section A of the Proponent’s Consulting Proposal, and/or have been the subject of petition for bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization within the last seven years, and such matters were not relatively minor and/or explainable; but neither the Proponent nor any person interested in the Proponent’s proposal is a Member, officer, employee or agent of the SSA. Unacceptable: The Proponent and/or a person(s) interested in the Proponent’s proposal is a Member, officer, employee or agent of the SSA.

B. VESSEL OPERATIONS AND FLEET MAINTENANCE

CONSULTING EXPERIENCE.

Highly Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding vessel operations (or similar operations) and fleet maintenance (or similar operations) for other organizations on at least three occasions over the past five years, including such services provided for operators of vehicle/passenger ferries or other public transportation providers,


47 of 50

and the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding vessel operations (or similar operations) and fleet maintenance (or similar operations) for other organizations on at least three occasions over the past five years, and the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Not Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding vessel operations (or similar operations) and fleet maintenance (or similar operations) for other organizations on fewer than three occasions over the past five years, and the majority of the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Unacceptable: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding vessel operations (or similar operations) and fleet maintenance (or similar operations) for other organizations on fewer than three occasions over the past five years, and the majority of the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were not satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

C. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE CONSULTING EXPERIENCE.

Highly Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding the management structure for other organizations on at least three occasions over the past five years, including such services provided for operators of vehicle/passenger ferries or other public transportation providers, and the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding the management structure for other organizations on at least three occasions over the past five years, and the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Not Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding the management structure for other organizations on fewer than three occasions over the past five years, and the majority of the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Unacceptable: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding the management structure for other organizations on fewer than three occasions over the past five years, and the majority of the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were not satisfied with the Proponent’s services.


48 of 50

D. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS CONSULTING EXPERIENCE.

Highly Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding public communications and Information Technology systems for other organizations on at least three occasions over the past five years, including such services provided for operators of vehicle/passenger ferries or other public transportation providers, and the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding public communications and Information Technology systems for other organizations on at least three occasions over the past five years, and the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Not Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding public communications and Information Technology systems for other organizations on fewer than three occasions over the past five years, and the majority of the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Unacceptable: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding public communications and Information Technology systems for other organizations on fewer than three occasions over the past five years, and the majority of the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were not satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

E. PROPOSED PERFORMANCE OF VESSEL OPERATIONS, FLEET MAIN-

TENANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE CONSULTING SERVICES.

Highly Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposal describes a detailed, logical and highly efficient scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s vessel operations, fleet maintenance and management structure, and the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract are highly qualified for this project with extensive experience in those areas.

Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposal describes a detailed, logical and highly efficient scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s vessel operations, fleet maintenance and management structure, and the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract are qualified for this project and have some experience in those areas.

Not Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposal describes a credible scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s vessel operations, fleet maintenance and management structure, and the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract


49 of 50

are adequately qualified for this project but do not have experience in vessel operations and fleet maintenance of other organizations.

Unacceptable: The Proponent’s proposal does not contain a sufficient description to fully evaluate the Proponent’s scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s vessel operations, fleet maintenance and management structure, or the scheme does not include all of the components necessary to produce a complete report that addresses all of the required issues, or the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract do not appear to be qualified for this project.

F. PROPOSED PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS CONSULTING SERVICES.

Highly Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposal describes a detailed, logical and highly efficient scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s public communications and information technology systems, and the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract are highly qualified for this project with extensive experience in those areas.

Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposal describes a detailed, logical and highly efficient scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s public communications and information technology systems, and the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract are qualified for this project and have some experience in those areas.

Not Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposal describes a credible scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s public communications and information technology systems, and the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract are adequately qualified for this project but do not have experience in those areas.

Unacceptable: The Proponent’s proposal does not contain a sufficient description to fully evaluate the Proponent’s scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s public communications and information technology systems, or the scheme does not include all of the components necessary to produce a complete report that addresses all of the required issues, or the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract do not appear to be qualified for this project.

G. PROPOSED CONTRACT WITHOUT FINANCIAL INFORMATION.

Highly Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposed Contract with the SSA for the provision of its consulting services (not including the Proponent’s proposed Total Contract Price or any other information from which any aspect of the Proponent’s proposed financial compensation for its services can be identified) does not impose any undue obligations on


50 of 50

the SSA or contain any unreasonable provisions which are not generally accepted contract terms in the consulting industry.

Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposed Contract with the SSA for the provision of its consulting services (not including the Proponent’s proposed Total Contract Price or any other information from which any aspect of the Proponent’s proposed financial compensation for its services can be identified) does not impose any undue obligations on the SSA but does contain one or more provisions which are unduly one-sided in favor of the Proponent or not generally accepted contract terms in the consulting industry.

Not Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposed Contract with the SSA for the provision of its consulting services (not including the Proponent’s proposed Total Contract Price or any other information from which any aspect of the Proponent’s proposed financial compensation for its services can be identified) imposes undue obligations on the SSA and/or contains one or more provisions which are unduly one-sided in favor of the Proponent or are not generally accepted contract terms in the consulting industry.

Unacceptable: The Proponent’s proposed Contract with the SSA for the provision of its consulting services (not including the Proponent’s proposed Total Contract Price or any other information from which any aspect of the Proponent’s proposed financial compensation for its services can be identified) imposes undue obligations on the SSA and/or contains unreasonable provisions that the SSA, as a public governmental entity, should not accept.

June 5, 2018 Dear: RFP Recipient, Re: Request for Proposals – For Management Consulting Services to Undertake a

Comprehensive Review of the Steamship Authority’s Operations Contract No. 06-2018 This is Addendum Number 1 To ensure a fair, open and competitive process, all recipients of RFP documents are being sent this addendum. The attention of proponents submitting Proposals for the above mentioned Contract is called to the following addendum to the Contract Documents, including the specifications and drawings. The items set forth herein, whether of omission, addition, substitution or clarification, are all to be included in and form a part of the Proposal submitted. This Addendum No. 1 consists of 2 pages

ITEM 1 – Responses to Question(s) One proponent noted that the RFP does not provide specific instructions to entities or interested parties intending to respond as a corporation with additional entities as subcontractors to perform specific section(s) of the scope of work, and asked three questions which are responded to below: 1. If a proponent intends to utilize a subcontractor, are there any limitations on such

an approach? There are no limitations on a Proponent’s use of one or more subcontractors, although

the Proponent should identify each subcontractor it intends to use to fulfill its obligations under its proposed Contract and describe what each subcontractor’s responsibilities will be in the same manner it describes what the Proponent’s responsibilities will be.

Page 2 Addendum #1 – RFP 06-2018

2. In the response (Consulting Proposal), should the subcontractor answer all questions listed in the form in addition to the prime?

No, the Consulting Proposal should be submitted only by the Proponent (the prime),

although each subcontractor would be considered a person interested in the proposal who should be identified in the Proponent’s answer to Question No. A-4 of its Consulting Proposal

A Proponent may rely on a subcontractor’s experience in its answer to Question No. B-1

of its Consulting Proposal, provided that the Proponent clearly discloses that it is relying on that subcontractor’s experience and provides a narrative description of the subcontractor’s experience in the same manner it provides a narrative description of its own experience.

Similarly, a Proponent may list a subcontractor’s clients for whom consulting services

have been provided regarding a particular aspect of an organization’s operations, provided that the Proponent clearly discloses that the clients were the subcontractor’s and not the Proponent’s and describes the consulting services the subcontractor performed for them.

3. Should the subcontractor respond on a separate form or provide responses in

combination with the prime’s form?

No, only the Proponent should submit a Consulting Proposal providing the requested information with respect to both the Proponent itself and each of its subcontractors.

End of Addendum No. 1

* All other information within the RFP to remain the same.

You must acknowledge receipt of this addendum on the face of your proposal. If there are questions regarding this addendum, or the RFP, please feel free to contact me at 508-548-5011 ext. 515. Sincerely, ________________________________ Peggy Nickerson, Procurement Officer


Comprehensive Review of the Steamship Authority’s Operations Contract No. 06-2018 This is Addendum Number 2 To ensure a fair, open and competitive process, all recipients of RFP documents are being sent this addendum. The attention of proponents submitting Proposals for the above mentioned Contract is called to the following addendum to the Contract Documents, including the specifications and drawings. The items set forth herein, whether of omission, addition, substitution or clarification, are all to be included in and form a part of the Proposal submitted. This Addendum No. 2 consists of eleven (11) pages and three (3) pdf attachments.

ITEM 1 – Responses to General Question(s) 1. Who will be the primary SSA point of contact for the consultant? The primary SSA point of contact for the consultant has not yet been determined.

The SSA Members will make that determination on or before the time the Consulting Contract is awarded.

2. Has the SSA ever previously engaged an outside consulting firm for similar consulting

services, if so which firms? The SSA has not previously engaged an outside consulting firm to undertake a

comprehensive review of the SSA’s operations. However, in 1994, McKinsey and Company did provide consulting services to the SSA that resulted in a report entitled “Enhancing SSA’s Organizational Effectiveness,” dated May 11, 1994. A copy of that report is attached to this Addendum 2.


3. The issues identified by the SSA as triggering this review are primarily related to vessels, specifically the maintenance/overhaul planning. Are there other non-vessel issues that we should be aware of as we prepare our response to the RFP?

The principal issues to be addressed by the Consultant are related to the SSA’s vessel operations, fleet maintenance, management structure, public communications and Information Technology systems, as described in the RFP.

4. Besides vessels and terminals, SSA is also responsible for parking lots, shuttle buses, a

maintenance facility, and a new headquarters building. Should the management review include these other assets and how they are perceived by staff and customers?

The principal issues to be addressed by the Consultant are related to the SSA’s vessel operations, fleet maintenance, management structure, public communications and Information Technology systems, as described in the RFP. Accordingly, the SSA does not anticipate that the management review will include the SSA’s other assets such as its parking lots, shuttle buses and new headquarters building. However, the SSA does anticipate that the management review will include the SSA’s maintenance facility as part of the Consultant’s review of the SSA’s fleet maintenance.

Information Technology: 5. In addition to the website, text message and email distribution that was mentioned, what

other IT-provided applications or services are critical to daily operations?

Other IT-provided applications or services that are critical to the SSA’s daily operations are its Accounting System, Reservations System, MAXIMO asset management system (IBM), Parking Lot System, Email System and Telephone System.

6. Are SSA IT servers/systems hosted on SSA premises, with a third party, cloud hosted or

a mix? If a mix, approximately what percentage of the systems are hosted with each method?

The SSA’s current servers/systems are hosted on SSA premises, but the SSA anticipates that its new Accounting System will be cloud-based. The new Accounting System is expected to be operating by January 1, 2019.


7. The RFP mentions that following recent storms, the SSA has worked to ensure that it has “the appropriate redundancy” to avoid loss of service in the future. Does this include any Disaster Recovery capabilities/locations for business critical IT systems?

Yes. 8. What specific hardware and software improvements were made to increase the SSA

website reliability and performance? A processor was added to the SSA’s primary Reservation System and the system

memory is being increased. 9. Does a formal Business Continuity Plan or Disaster Recovery Plan exist for IT systems,

applications and services? Yes. 10. How many physically separate hosting facilities exist today and is there any duplication

of systems for redundancy or disaster recovery purposes?

There are currently two physically separate hosting facilities, and there is duplication of systems for redundancy or disaster recovery purposes.

11. What is the approximate count of servers that SSA MIS operates?

The SSA operates approximately 120 servers. 12. What is the approximate count of SSA IT end-users (individual SSA employees or

contractors with a unique login) that SSA MIS supports?

The SSA supports approximately 300 IT end-users with unique logins. 13. How many different locations host SSA terminals used for processing reservations and

payments?

There are approximately 15 different locations that host SSA terminals which are used for processing reservations and payments, including the SSA’s five ferry terminals, its Mashpee Reservations Office, its eight parking lots, and it new administrative office.


14. Has there been a recent systems/assets cyber assessment and is there an on-going cyber monitoring plan in place today?

Yes.

Vessel Maintenance, Fleet Operations & Management: 15. The SSA operates on a challenging schedule in an environment with strong currents, fog,

high vessel traffic, and strong breezes. Is a safety review required to evaluate how the SSA management strikes a balance between reliable performance and safe operations?

The SSA does not believe that a safety review will be required as part of the Consultant’s services, assuming that the SSA understands how the proponent is using the term “safety review.” However, the SSA does anticipate that the review of its vessel operations will include a review of the SSA’s history of trip delays and cancellations, an assessment of the reasons for those delays and cancellations, and the development of ways to evaluate the circumstances that may result in trip delays and cancellations in the future in order to improve the SSA’s vessel operations.

16. Like most ferry systems, SSA is juggling a mix of old vessels and relatively new vessels.

Is part of this management review to include an examination of the decision process for vessel acquisition and long range capital planning?

No. The decision process for vessel acquisition and long-range capital planning is

beyond the scope of the services being requested by the SSA. 17. What are SSA’s key performance indicators (KPIs) with regards to fleet operations?

What data is collected to measure these KPIs? The SSA does not formally keep track of any key performance indicators with

regard to its fleet operations. 18. Regarding the following statement: “Usually only two shipyards submit bids to provide

those dry-dock services: Senesco Marine LLC of North Kingstown, Rhode Island, and Thames Shipyard and Repair Company of New London, Connecticut.” Are there any other shipyards that have submitted proposals to perform dry-dock services within the last 10 years?

Yes. The other shipyards that have submitted bids to perform dry-dock services for

the SSA within the last ten years are:

Bayonne Dry Dock & Repair Corp. of Bayonne, New Jersey


Caddell Dry Dock and Repair Company of Staten Island, New York

Colonnoa’s Shipyard Inc. of Norfolk, Virginia

Conrad Shipyard LLC of Morgan City, Louisiana (only for the larger M/V Martha’s Vineyard mid-life refurbishment project, not the routine dry-docking of the SSA’s vessels)

Detyens Shipyard Inc. of North Charleston, South Carolina

Fairhaven Shipyard of Fairhaven, Massachusetts (only for the SSA’s high-speed passenger-only ferry)

GMD Shipyard Corporation of Brooklyn, New York

Lyon Shipyard of Norfolk, Virginia 19. Who (department or individuals) manages relationships with 3rd parties & oversees

execution of contractual obligations? The SSA’s Engineering and Maintenance Department manages third party relation-

ships and oversees the execution of contractual obligations pertaining to the SSA’s vessel maintenance.

20. What is the process by which vendors are evaluated for dry-dock services? Vendors are evaluated to confirm that they are qualified to perform the work

required and are eligible and responsible bidders, but after vendors meet that qualification threshold, the contract for dry-dock services is awarded to the eligible and responsible bidder which submits the lowest bid.

21. Is there specific reporting performed to measure vendor performance/key performance

indicators? The SSA does not maintain formal reports that measure vendor performance/key

performance indicators. 22. Within Exhibit B Repair Schedule, what do “Spruce Up” periods typically entail?

The spruce up period usually entails aesthetic work such as cleaning and painting along with correcting small operational issues that have arisen prior to the SSA’s busy summer season.


23. What IT systems does the SSA rely on for fleet management activities (i.e. scheduling, capacity planning, communications, etc.)?

The SSA relies on its MAXIMO Asset Management System (IBM) and MAXIMO Anywhere with customized BIRT reports, Microsoft Excel and Crystal Reports. The Reservation System is also used to determine capacity utilization which in turn is considered for vessel scheduling and capacity planning. The SSA also relies on its email system, cellular telephones and wifi for fleet communications. However, the SSA recently has decided to move from MAXIMO Asset Management System (IBM) to TAG. TAG is a CMMS program that will integrate with the SSA’s new Accounting System that should be operational by January 1, 2019.

Organizational/Managerial Structure: 24. Do you have a current organizational chart that can be shared?

Attached is the SSA’s current Organization Chart and the Organization Chart that is being phased in during the summer of 2018 and finalized by September 1, 2018.

25. What is SSA’s total headcount? How are personnel allocated across SSA’s departments?

As described in the RFP, the SSA is to some degree a seasonal operation, providing more ferry service during the summer months and less ferry service during the off-season. As a result, the number of employees working for the SSA is highest during the summer and lowest during the winter. Further, a number of vessel personnel who are members of vessel watchstanding crews during the summer, become members of the “repair boat crew” during the off-season and perform repair work on the vessels in addition to the SSA’s Maintenance Department employees. Each vessel in repair (and also during its routine dry-docking) also has a Senior Captain and Senior Chief Engineer assigned to it. During the workweek ending Friday, August 25, 2017, the SSA’s total headcount was 616, while during the workweek ending Friday, February 9, 2018, the SSA’s total headcount was 469, allocated among the SSA’s represented bargaining units and non-union employees as follows: Workweek Workweek Ending 08/25/2017 Ending 02/09/2018 Non-Union Personnel Accounting & Finance 21 17 Administration 3 3 Engineering & Maintenance 11 10 Human Resources 5 5

Information Technologies 10 10


Operations 5 5 Parking & Shuttle Buses 9 6 Reservations & Marketing 8 5 Terminals 21 20

Licensed Deck Officers 53 47

Chief Engineers 27 24

Unlicensed Vessel Employees 170 135

Maintenance Dept. Employees 30 30

Agency & Terminal Employees 132 91

Parking Attendants & Bus Drivers 62 24

Reservation Clerks & Group Sales 33 25

Security Employees 16 12 TOTAL 616 469 Note: “Agency and Terminal Employees” are comprised of the represented employees who work at the SSA’s ferry terminals, including its assistant agents, ticket sellers, terminal workers, dock workers and janitors.

26. Please give an overview of recent and expected upcoming leadership changes.

On June 30, 2017, the SSA’s previous General Manager retired. He had been with the SSA since 1972; he served as its Treasurer/Comptroller from 1982 to 2005; and he became the SSA’s General Manager in 2004.

The SSA’s current General Manager has been with the SSA since 1986; he served as the SSA’s Treasurer/Comptroller from 2005 to 2017; and he became the SSA’s General Manager on July 1, 2017.

The SSA’s current Port Captain has been with the SSA as its Port Captain since 2003. He will be retiring on June 15, 2018.

The SSA’s current General Counsel has been with the SSA as its General Counsel since 1992. He will be retiring on July 31, 2018.

The SSA’s current General Counsel designate joined the SSA on May 1, 2018; and he will be the SSA’s General Counsel commencing August 1, 2018.

The SSA’s current Director of Human Resources has been with the SSA since 1970; he served as the SSA’s Operations Manager from 1984 to 1989, then as the SSA’s Operations/Personnel Manager from 1989 to 1991; and has been the


Director of Human Resources since 1991. He will be retiring on August 31, 2018.

Public Communications/Customer Experience: 27. How are you currently receiving feedback from your customers regarding their SSA

website experience? The SSA’s website has a “Contact Us” webpage, where customers can submit their

suggestions, compliments and complaints by clicking on a “Give Us Your Feedback” button. On that same webpage, customers can click on an envelope icon next to a specific department or manager, which then takes them to another “Contact the Steamship Authority” webpage that allows them to email the department or manager directly.

Customers also contact the SSA’s Members and numerous SSA employees directly

by telephone or email to provide feedback regarding their experience with the SSA’s website. The SSA employees who are often contacted directly by customers include the General Manager, the Reservations & Community Relations Manager, the Director of Information Technologies, and Reservation Clerks who make reservations for customers by telephone.

28. Does the SSA have existing customer personas, journey maps, defined business values,

etc. that can be iterated upon? No. 29. Has the SSA filled the new Communications Director position? Yes. The SSA’s new Communications Director will be joining the SSA on June 25,

2018. RFP Process and Award of Contract: 30. Who are the SSA members who will be evaluating the consultant proposals and finance

proposals?

All five SSA Members will be evaluating the Consulting Proposals and the Financial Proposals. The SSA Members are identified on the SSA’s website, and the link to the specific webpage is: https://www.steamshipauthority.com/about/history


31. How can consultants access the registry of proposals for inspection? The registry of proposals will be posted onto the SSA’s website, under the tab

“Doing Business with Us.”

32. While studying your RFP documents, we came up with a question concerning the tender schedule.

On page 11 under III. B. “Schedule of Service” you talk about awarding the contract by June 19, 2018.

On page 18 under V. B. “Award of the Contract” you talk about the General Manager who shall deliver written notice of the award to the selected bidder by June 30, 2018.

On page 19 under VI. “Anticipated RFP Schedule” you schedule June 19, 2018 as “completion of evaluations of consulting proposals”, and you leave the final award date (assumingly in June 2018) open.

Could you please be so kind and clarify what schedule will be the correct one? It is important to note that the RFP Schedule is subject to change during the RFP Process, but the earliest that the contract will be awarded is June 19, 2018, which is the date when the Consulting Proposals are currently scheduled to be evaluated by the SSA’s Members. If, after evaluating the Consulting Proposals, the SSA’s Members also open the Financial Proposals that same day, they could award a contract at that time. However, on or before June 19, 2018, the SSA’s Members might decide to postpone the opening of the Consulting Proposals or open the Financial Proposals another day later in June; or, on June 19, 2018, the SSA’s Members may open the Financial Proposals but decide to select up to three finalists for the Contract (and then award the Contract) at a later day in June. In addition, by mutual agreement with the selected finalist, the date of the award of the Contract may even be later than June 30, 2018, although the SSA anticipates that the Contract will be awarded sometime between June 19 and June 30, 2018.

33. The scope of services and the resulting schedule and required resources are not well

defined in the RFP. How will SSA review proposals that may vary widely in scope, budget, and schedule?

The SSA’s Members will select up to three finalists from among the proponents, taking into consideration their evaluations of the proponents’ Consulting Proposals and their Financial Proposals. The SSA’s Members will also rank the finalists in their recommended order of qualification and explain the reasons for their choice and ranking of the finalists. These selection and ranking decisions may be easy if, for example, the Consulting Proposal of the Proponent with the lowest-priced


Financial Proposal has received the highest composite rating of all the Consulting Proposals submitted, or if all of the Consulting Proposals submitted have receive the same rating and the differences are so insignificant that the SSA’s Members decide to go with the lowest-priced proposal.

However, if a Proponent whose Consulting Proposal has received a higher composite rating submits a Financial Proposal with a higher price than another Proponent whose Consulting Proposal has been evaluated as being advantageous to the SSA, the SSA’s Members will carefully consider whether it is worthwhile for the SSA to spend more money to contract with that Proponent. In these circumstances, the SSA’s Members will determine which proposal best meets the needs of the SSA, and they may or may not decide that the extra benefits afforded by a highly advantageous proposal are worth the cost premium the SSA would incur by selecting that proposal. There is no mechanical process for making the tradeoff.

34. A Proponent has suggested that the management review should look at problems beyond

those that occurred over the past 12 months. What degree of historic data should be reviewed for this effort: Past 5 years, past 10 years?

The Consultant should review the degree of historical data that it believes is necessary and appropriate to undertake its proposed comprehensive review of the SSA’s operations.

35. We request that SSA consider extending the due date for the RFP by two weeks. As we

develop our thoughts on how to respond and what resources will be required for a comprehensive proposal, we believe that the due date of June 12th will be challenging to meet.

The SSA has received only one request for an extension of the due date for

submission of proposals, which indicates to the SSA that most consulting firms which have received the RFP believe they have sufficient time to submit proposals and have spent the intervening period preparing their proposals so that they can submit them by the June 12, 2018 deadline. Accordingly, at this time the SSA does not feel it would be fair to those other consulting firms to extend the due date for submission of proposals.



You must acknowledge receipt of this addendum on the face of your proposal.


If there are questions regarding this addendum, or the RFP, please feel free to contact me at 508-548-5011 ext. 515. Sincerely,

Peggy Nickerson ________________________________ Peggy Nickerson, Procurement Officer

AUTH

ORI

TY M

EMBE

RS

GEN

ERAL

MAN

AGER

PORT

CO

UN

CIL

TREA

SURE

R/ C

OM

PTRO

LLER

Fina

nce

Acco

unng

Au

ding

Pr

ocur

emen

t Pa

yrol

l In

sura

nce

GEN

ERAL

CO

UN

SEL

Lega

l Cou

nsel

Li

cens

e Ag

reem

ents

Co

ntra

cts

Real

Est

ate

Liga

on

SSA

Polic

ies

Mon

itors

/Par

cipa

tes

in:

La

bor R

ela

ons

En

viro

nmen

tal

Com

plia

nce

Sa

fety

Com

plia

nce

Pr

ocur

emen

t Com

plia

nce

OPE

RATI

ON

S M

ANAG

ER

SECU

RITY

VE

SSEL

O

PERA

TIO

NS

TERM

INAL

&

PARK

ING

LO

T O

PERA

TIO

NS

DIRE

CTO

R O

F EN

GIN

EERI

NG

&

MAI

NTE

NAN

CE

DIRE

CTO

R O

F IN

FORM

ATIO

N

TECH

NO

LOG

Y

DIRE

CTO

R O

F HU

MAN

R

ESO

URC

ES

MTS

A

Com

plia

nce

Secu

rity

Inci

dent

In

ves

gaon

s

Vess

el O

pera

ons

and

Sche

dulin

g

Deck

Dep

t.

Ope

raon

s

Vess

el P

erso

nnel

Di

spat

ch

Term

inal

s

Park

ing

Lots

Shu

le B

uses

Vess

el M

aint

enan

ce

& C

onst

ruc

on

Faci

lies

M

aint

enan

ce &

Co

nstr

ucon

Equi

pmen

t M

aint

enan

ce

War

ehou

se

Ope

raon

s

Vess

el E

ngin

e

Dept

. Ope

raon

s

Ope

raon

, Mai

nten

ance

an

d Su

ppor

t of A

ll In

for-

ma

on T

echn

olog

ies

(e.g

., R

eser

vaon

and

Ti

cke

ng S

yste

ms,

Cr

edit

Card

Pro

cess

ing,

Co

mpu

ter N

etw

orks

, W

ebsit

e an

d

Elec

tron

ic a

nd

Tele

com

mun

ica

ons)

Labo

r Rel

aon

s

Recr

uitm

ent &

Tr

aini

ng

Pers

onne

l Ma

ers

Sala

ry &

Ben

efits

Ad

min

istra

on

Safe

ty P

rogr

am

Pers

onal

Inju

ry &

Pr

oper

ty C

laim

s (p

re-li

gaon

)

COM

MU

NIC

ATIO

NS

DI

RECT

OR

SSA

Com

mun

ica

ons

(Med

ia R

elea

ses &

Con

tact

, W

ebsit

e &

e-N

ews)

Mee

ng C

omm

unic

aon

s (N

oce

s, P

rese

nta

ons,

Su

mm

arie

s & M

inut

es)

Mar

keng

& A

dver

sing

Reco

rds A

cces

s Offi

cer

(Pub

lic R

ecor

ds)

Cust

omer

& C

omm

unity

Re

laon

s

Mon

itors

/Par

cipa

tes

in:

La

bor R

ela

ons

Sa

lary

& B

enefi

ts A

dmin

istr

aon

RESE

RVAT

ION

S

Rese

rva

ons

Gro

up S

ales

To b

e ph

ased

in o

ver t

he su

mm

er o

f 201

8 an

d fin

alize

d by

Sep

tem

ber 1

, 201

8


Comprehensive Review of the Steamship Authority’s Operations Contract No. 06-2018 This is Addendum Number 3 To ensure a fair, open and competitive process, all recipients of RFP documents are being sent this addendum. The attention of proponents submitting Proposals for the above mentioned Contract is called to the following addendum to the Contract Documents, including the specifications and drawings. The items set forth herein, whether of omission, addition, substitution or clarification, are all to be included in and form a part of the Proposal submitted. This Addendum No. 3 consists of two (2) pages.

ITEM 1 – Responses to General Question(s) 1. The SSA represents five communities. Is the scope of the review anticipated to include

public meetings and/or surveys of systems users? No. 2. The SSA is one of the few ferry systems that operates without subsidies. While not

specifically mentioned, the financial component of operations is considered very important. Accordingly, does the review need to encompass the financial aspects of the ferry system?

No.


3. Again, while not specifically mentioned, does the SSA anticipate that other aspects of ferry operations, such as terminal operations, vessel scheduling, safety and security, and staffing/labor considerations should be included under the scope of this review?

No, except to the extent that the Consultant makes an assessment regarding what

staffing the SSA has for its vessel operations, fleet maintenance, management structure, public communications and Information Technology systems compared to what staffing the Consultant recommends the SSA should have for those aspects of its operations.

4. We understand that the SSA is in the process of making major modifications at the

Woods Hole terminal. Should the review include a critical look at how that project has been planned?

No. 5. Given the significant scope of services, do you have any deadlines or milestones for

completion of this assessment that we should include in our approach?

No. Each Proponent should propose a Contract Schedule that it believes is necessary and appropriate to undertake its proposed comprehensive review of the SSA’s operations.



You must acknowledge receipt of this addendum on the face of your proposal. If there are questions regarding this addendum, or the RFP, please feel free to contact me at 508-548-5011 ext. 515. Sincerely,



Comprehensive Review of the Steamship Authority’s Operations Contract No. 06-2018 This is Addendum Number 4 To ensure a fair, open and competitive process, all recipients of RFP documents are being sent this addendum. The attention of proponents submitting Proposals for the above mentioned Contract is called to the following addendum to the Contract Documents, including the specifications and drawings. The items set forth herein, whether of omission, addition, substitution or clarification, are all to be included in and form a part of the Proposal submitted. This Addendum No. 4 consists of five (5) pages.

ITEM 1 – Responses to General Question(s) General Questions: 1. The focus of the RFP is on an operational assessment and recommendations. To what

extent should the project deliverables make specific recommendations regarding implementation plans?

Each Proponent should propose such recommendations regarding implementation

plans that it believes are necessary and appropriate for the SSA to be able to improve its vessel operations, fleet maintenance, management structure, public communications and Information Technology systems based upon the Proponent’s proposed review and assessment of the SSA’s operations.

2. Are you specifically looking for a desktop assessment from a central location, or will our

consultants be able to visit and study the different sites during the project? The Consultant will be able to visit and study the different sites during the project.


3. To ensure alignment with SSA expectations, have budget parameters been established for

this scope of work? In our experience, level of effort/activity can (within reason) be modulated to budget

levels A proper comprehensive assessment of a complex and multi constituency operation such

as the SSA requires a commensurate level of effort and budget. We, as well as any consultancy, would not wish to submit a bid to the SSA that is 2X or

5X the targeted budget expectation of the SSA. Nor we suspect would the SSA wish to invest its time and resources to review proposals which have such a large disconnect from targeted budget.

The SSA has not established any budget parameters for this scope of work. 4. Can we assume that the consultancy selected will have complete access to a

comprehensive data room replete with all financial, operational, sales, management, HR/personnel, customer research and surveys, etc. data?

For the past 5 years? Including any forward looking strategic plans and financial and other materials/ models? In electronic format? Prior to project kick-off?

The SSA will provide the Consultant with all of its financial, operational, sales,

management, HR/personnel, and customer research data, as well as any other data that the Consultant believes is necessary and appropriate for it to review the SSA’s vessel operations, fleet maintenance, management structure, public communications and Information Technology systems, to the extent such data is available. In addition, to the extent the SSA is able, it will also provide that data in electronic format and prior to project kick-off. A conference room in the SSA’s new administrative office building will be made available to the Consultant during the duration of its consultancy.

5. Will our team need special identification for Homeland Security (TSA) reasons? We are

specifically looking at whether or not they need TWIC cards? No one employed or otherwise associated with the Consultant will need special

identification for Homeland Security reasons and they will not need TWIC cards. Arrangements will be made to ensure that the Consultant’s employees and other agents and representatives are appropriately escorted during any of its site visits it may want to take in secure areas within the SSA’s facilities.

6. In our view, and given the important role the SSA plays in the communities of the

SouthCoast, the Cape and Islands – we believe socialization will be a critical element with respect to a successful outcome. Said another way – ensuring employees,


management and the SSA are involved in the process, their voices/inputs/observations/ recommendations are heard will be a significant consideration in determining the ultimate success of the project effort. Will the SSA enable access to ensure this can be accomplished?

This could include interviews, meetings, briefings, surveys. This includes the SSA executive team, functional management of the SSA operations,

and front line employees. Yes. 7. Community engagement. Similar to #6 above – as evidenced by the community

governmental responses included as part of the proposal – Can the SSA confirm that they will support external engagement with the community more broadly

This may include state/local government officials, other officials, Boards of Trade, Chambers of Commerce, etc.

As well as customer (freight, passenger, etc.) research and insights. The SSA notes that it already has received a large amount of feedback from the

public regarding its operations, and that feedback will be made available to the Consultant. However, to the extent that further external engagement is necessary and appropriate to accomplish the Consultant’s proposed review of the SSA’s vessel operations, fleet maintenance, management structure, public communications and Information Technology systems, the SSA will support that engagement.

8. Timing. In the RFP, the SSA does not make note of any timeframes or required deadlines

from the SSA. In addition the RFP and Addendum 3 indicate the timeframe/scope are to be proposed by the bidding parties. Depending on the level of effort and completeness – and availability of key staff to be interviewed, review and explain internal materials, an effort of this nature could range from (minimally) multiple weeks to several months. Does the SSA have an expectation or desire for a targeted completion date? For example a targeted date of completion that aligns with any internal planning cycles, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (or other) governmental reporting deadlines.

The SSA does not have an expectation or desire for a targeted completion date.

Accordingly, each Proponent should propose a Contract Schedule that it believes is necessary and appropriate to undertake its proposed comprehensive review of the SSA’s operations. Having said that, however, it should be noted that the SSA’s typical budget calendar calls for the SSA’s Members to have their final review and approval of the SSA’s Operating Budget for the following year and any rate increases, if necessary, at the October monthly meeting.


RFP Process and Award of Contract: 9. Regarding the electronic submission of materials (detailed qualifications, approach and

work plan, timing, etc.) – are either MS PowerPoint or Word acceptable? Do you have a requirement or strong preference for either?

Neither MS PowerPoint nor Word is acceptable. The file format for all documents

submitted electronically as part of a Proponent’s proposal must be Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 or higher (PDF). This and other requirements for the electronic submission of proposals are set forth in Part IV (E) of the RFP, at pp. 14-16.

10. As an international company with operations around the globe, we interpret certification

6 (p. 44) to apply solely to our US operating entity which would be the contracting party. Please confirm.

Yes, only the Proponent which is submitting the proposal and which, if selected to

be the Consultant, would then be entering into a Contract with the SSA, is required to execute the certifications in its Consulting Proposal and Financial Proposal.

11. If the SSA requests that a presentation be made by the consulting firm (p. 17), we assume

that a duly authorized member of the consultancy is sufficient vs attendance of all team members. Please confirm.

If the SSA’s Members request any Proponent to make a presentation explaining its

proposal, it will be up to the Proponent to decide whether to have a duly authorized member of the consultancy make the presentation or have additional team members also participate in the presentation.

12. How will the Commercial and non-Commercial components of the proposal be weighted

by the SSA? Is there a scoring rubric - 50/50? 75/25? (V page 16). Please see the SSA’s response to Question No. 33 in Addendum No. 2 to the RFP,

which addendum was issued on June 6, 2018. 13. What are the relative weightings for each of the non-price evaluation criteria given in

Exhibit E? There are no relative weightings for the non-price evaluation criteria set forth in

Exhibit E to the RFP. In arriving at their overall composite rating for each Consulting Proposal, the SSA’s Members will state their reasons for the rating during their meeting in open session. Of course, each composite rating must rationally reflect the underlying ratings for each criterion. For example, a


Consulting Proposal receiving “advantageous” ratings for all comparative criteria likely would not warrant a “highly advantageous” composite rating. The explanations given by the SSA’s Members for each composite rating will also identify what attributes of a Consulting Proposal warrant a “highly advantageous” or other composite rating, and how that Consulting Proposal compares to other Consulting Proposals with “highly advantageous” or other composite ratings. For example, if a “highly advantageous” Consulting Proposal is only marginally better than those rated “advantageous,” that information will be part of the SSA’s Members’ consideration when they select and rank up to three finalists for the Contract taking into consideration price and their evaluations of the Consulting Proposals.

14. Given the comprehensive nature of the SSA’s RFP, we would like to request if the SSA

would consider a 2 week delay to enable additional time for consulting firms to prepare submissions.

The SSA has received only a few requests for an extension of the due date for

submission of proposals, which indicates to the SSA that most consulting firms which have received the RFP believe they have sufficient time to submit proposals and have spent the intervening period preparing their proposals so that they can submit them by the June 12, 2018 deadline. Accordingly, at this time the SSA does not feel it would be fair to those other consulting firms to extend the due date for submission of proposals.



You must acknowledge receipt of this addendum on the face of your proposal. If there are questions regarding this addendum, or the RFP, please feel free to contact me at 508-548-5011 ext. 515. Sincerely,


1 of 7

NON-PRICE EVALUATION CRITERIA

CONSULTING PROPOSALS



CONTRACT NO. 06-2018 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

Highly Advantageous: The Proponent and persons interested in the Proponent’s proposal have not been convicted or finally adjudicated of any of the offenses described in Section A of the Proponent’s Consulting Proposal, have not been the subject of petition for bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization within the last seven years, and are not a Member, officer, employee or agent of the SSA. Advantageous: While the Proponent and/or a person(s) interested in the Proponent’s proposal have been convicted or finally adjudicated of any of the offenses described in Section A of the Proponent’s Consulting Proposal, and/or have been the subject of petition for bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization within the last seven years, such matters were relatively minor and/or explainable, and neither the Proponent nor any person interested in the Proponent’s proposal is a Member, officer, employee or agent of the SSA. Not Advantageous: The Proponent and/or a person(s) interested in the Proponent’s proposal have been convicted or finally adjudicated of any of the offenses described in Section A of the Proponent’s Consulting Proposal, and/or have been the subject of petition for bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization within the last seven years, and such matters were not relatively minor and/or explainable; but neither the Proponent nor any person interested in the Proponent’s proposal is a Member, officer, employee or agent of the SSA. Unacceptable: The Proponent and/or a person(s) interested in the Proponent’s proposal is a Member, officer, employee or agent of the SSA.

2 of 7

B. VESSEL OPERATIONS AND FLEET MAINTENANCE CONSULTING EXPERIENCE.

Highly Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding vessel operations (or similar operations) and fleet maintenance (or similar operations) for other organizations on at least three occasions over the past five years, including such services provided for operators of vehicle/passenger ferries or other public transportation providers, and the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding vessel operations (or similar operations) and fleet maintenance (or similar operations) for other organizations on at least three occasions over the past five years, and the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Not Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding vessel operations (or similar operations) and fleet maintenance (or similar operations) for other organizations on fewer than three occasions over the past five years, and the majority of the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Unacceptable: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding vessel operations (or similar operations) and fleet maintenance (or similar operations) for other organizations on fewer than three occasions over the past five years, and the majority of the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were not satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

3 of 7


Highly Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding the management structure for other organizations on at least three occasions over the past five years, including such services provided for operators of vehicle/passenger ferries or other public transportation providers, and the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding the management structure for other organizations on at least three occasions over the past five years, and the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Not Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding the management structure for other organizations on fewer than three occasions over the past five years, and the majority of the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Unacceptable: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding the management structure for other organizations on fewer than three occasions over the past five years, and the majority of the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were not satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

4 of 7

D. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS CONSULTING EXPERIENCE.

Highly Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding public communications and Information Technology systems for other organizations on at least three occasions over the past five years, including such services provided for operators of vehicle/passenger ferries or other public transportation providers, and the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding public communications and Information Technology systems for other organizations on at least three occasions over the past five years, and the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Not Advantageous: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding public communications and Information Technology systems for other organizations on fewer than three occasions over the past five years, and the majority of the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

Unacceptable: The Proponent has provided consulting services regarding public communications and Information Technology systems for other organizations on fewer than three occasions over the past five years, and the majority of the Proponent’s three most recent clients for whom those services have been provided were not satisfied with the Proponent’s services.

5 of 7

E. PROPOSED PERFORMANCE OF VESSEL OPERATIONS, FLEET MAIN-TENANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE CONSULTING SERVICES.

Highly Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposal describes a detailed, logical and highly efficient scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s vessel operations, fleet maintenance and management structure, and the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract are highly qualified for this project with extensive experience in those areas.

Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposal describes a detailed, logical and highly efficient scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s vessel operations, fleet maintenance and management structure, and the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract are qualified for this project and have some experience in those areas.

Not Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposal describes a credible scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s vessel operations, fleet maintenance and management structure, and the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract are adequately qualified for this project but do not have experience in vessel operations and fleet maintenance of other organizations.

Unacceptable: The Proponent’s proposal does not contain a sufficient description to fully evaluate the Proponent’s scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s vessel operations, fleet maintenance and management structure, or the scheme does not include all of the components necessary to produce a complete report that addresses all of the required issues, or the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract do not appear to be qualified for this project.

6 of 7


Highly Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposal describes a detailed, logical and highly efficient scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s public communications and information technology systems, and the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract are highly qualified for this project with extensive experience in those areas.

Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposal describes a detailed, logical and highly efficient scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s public communications and information technology systems, and the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract are qualified for this project and have some experience in those areas.

Not Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposal describes a credible scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s public communications and information technology systems, and the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract are adequately qualified for this project but do not have experience in those areas.

Unacceptable: The Proponent’s proposal does not contain a sufficient description to fully evaluate the Proponent’s scheme for analyzing and making recommendations to improve the SSA’s public communications and information technology systems, or the scheme does not include all of the components necessary to produce a complete report that addresses all of the required issues, or the key individuals who will be involved in the Contract do not appear to be qualified for this project.

7 of 7


Highly Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposed Contract with the SSA for the provision of its consulting services (not including the Proponent’s proposed Total Contract Price or any other information from which any aspect of the Proponent’s proposed financial compensation for its services can be identified) does not impose any undue obligations on the SSA or contain any unreasonable provisions which are not generally accepted contract terms in the consulting industry.

Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposed Contract with the SSA for the provision of its consulting services (not including the Proponent’s proposed Total Contract Price or any other information from which any aspect of the Proponent’s proposed financial compensation for its services can be identified) does not impose any undue obligations on the SSA but does contain one or more provisions which are unduly one-sided in favor of the Proponent or not generally accepted contract terms in the consulting industry.

Not Advantageous: The Proponent’s proposed Contract with the SSA for the provision of its consulting services (not including the Proponent’s proposed Total Contract Price or any other information from which any aspect of the Proponent’s proposed financial compensation for its services can be identified) imposes undue obligations on the SSA and/or contains one or more provisions which are unduly one-sided in favor of the Proponent or are not generally accepted contract terms in the consulting industry.

Unacceptable: The Proponent’s proposed Contract with the SSA for the provision of its consulting services (not including the Proponent’s proposed Total Contract Price or any other information from which any aspect of the Proponent’s proposed financial compensation for its services can be identified) imposes undue obligations on the SSA and/or contains unreasonable provisions that the SSA, as a public governmental entity, should not accept.

EVALUATION FORM OF CONSULTING PROPOSALS




Proponent: ____________________________________ Evaluator: ____________________________________ Please assign a rating to each criterion and give a detailed reason for that rating. Please provide as much qualitative information as possible to assist you and your fellow Authority Members in making an award decision. Ratings:

HA – Highly Advantageous

A – Advantageous

NA – Not Advantageous

U - Unacceptable

Proponent: Evaluator:

2 of 9

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. Rating: ____________ Reasons:


3 of 9

B. VESSEL OPERATIONS AND FLEET MAINTENANCE

CONSULTING EXPERIENCE. Rating: ____________

Reasons:


4 of 9


Rating: ____________ Reasons:


5 of 9

D. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS CONSULTING EXPERIENCE.



6 of 9

E. PROPOSED PERFORMANCE OF VESSEL OPERATIONS, FLEET MAIN-

TENANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE CONSULTING SERVICES.



7 of 9




8 of 9




9 of 9

COMPOSITE RATING

After assigning a rating to each comparative criterion, you should assign a composite rating to the Consulting Proposal and state in writing the reasons for the rating. Please provide as much qualitative information as possible to assist you and your fellow Authority Members in making an award decision.

Composite Rating: ____________

Reasons:

Client Contact Form – Contract No. 06-2018

1 of 2

Proponent/Subcontractor: ______________________________________________________ Client: ______________________________________________________ Client Contact: ______________________________________________________ Client’s Business/Operations: _____________________________________________________ Has the Proponent/Subcontractor Provided Consulting Services to the Client within the Last Five Years? ________. If so, when were those Consulting Services Provided?: _________________ What Types of Consulting Services did the Proponent/Subcontractor Provide? Were the Consulting Services provided in connection with the Client’s Vessel Operations (or similar operations) and Fleet Maintenance (or similar operations)? ____________ Were the Consulting Services provided in connection with the Client’s management structure? ____________ Were the Consulting Services provided in connection with the Client’s public communications and Information Technology systems? ____________ Was the Client satisfied with the Consulting Services? ____________ If in the future the Client again needed help in this area of its operations, would it hire the Proponent/Subcontractor again to provide Consulting Services? ____________

Client Contact Form – Contract No. 06-2018

2 of 2

Additional Comments: Dated: _______________________ ____________________________________

DRAFT – June 10, 2018

1 of 12

MINUTES

OF THE

PORT COUNCIL

OF THE


June 6, 2018

Second Floor Meeting Room Hyannis Terminal

141 School Street, Hyannis, Massachusetts

Port Council Members present: Chairman Robert V. Huss (Oak Bluffs); Secretary Eric W. Shufelt (Barnstable); Robert S. C. Munier (Falmouth); Nathaniel E. Lowell (Nantucket); and George J. Balco (Tisbury).

Port Council Members absent: Vice Chairman Edward C. Anthes-Washburn (New

Bedford); Frank J. Rezendes (Fairhaven). Authority Members present: Robert R. Jones (Barnstable); and Elizabeth H. Gladfelter

(Falmouth).

Authority Management present: Robert B. Davis (General Manager); Gerard J. Murphy (Treasurer/Comptroller); Gina L. Barboza (Reservations and Customer Relations Manager); Mary T. H. Claffey (Director of Information Technologies); Kimberlee McHugh (Director of Marketing); Carl R. Walker (Director of Engineering and Maintenance); Mark K. Rozum (Operations Manager); Phillip J. Parent (Director of Human Resources); Terence G. Kenneally (General Counsel Designate); and Steven M. Sayers (General Counsel).

1. After Mr. Huss called the meeting to order at approximately 9:30 a.m., the Port Council

voted unanimously (with Mr. Huss abstaining) to approve the minutes of their meeting in public session on May 2, 2018.


2 of 12

2. Mr. Davis then reported that, after careful consideration of dozens of applicants and interviews, the Authority had extended an offer to Sean Driscoll to become the Authority’s new Communications Director, and that he was pleased to announce that Mr. Driscoll has accepted the offer and will be joining the Authority on June 25, 2018. Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Driscoll will work together with the staff to integrate a communications program both internally and with respect to all of the Authority’s communications with the media and the public, which will include improving the Authority’s social media presence and ensuring that the Authority issues accurate information to the public as quickly as it can. Mr. Davis then introduced Mr. Driscoll to the Port Council, and Mr. Huss welcomed him on board.

3. Mr. Davis reported that the staff was in the final stage of testing SKIDATA’s application of its sweb.Wallet mobile ticketing app for smartphones for use on the Authority’s high-speed passenger ferry, and that so far the results were promising. Mr. Davis noted that the application will send emails to customers that contain an automatic link which, when opened, displays the ticket so that it can be scanned. Mr. Davis also noted that the application controls the brightness of smartphones’ screens and the positioning of the tickets’ bar codes on the screens for easier scanning. In addition, Mr. Davis said, the application allows customers to print out their tickets at home if they prefer to present a paper ticket to be scanned instead of showing their smartphones. Mr. Davis noted that, after the staff verifies the accuracy and convenience of the application for the Authority’s high-speed ferry customers, the plan is then to use it for customers on the Authority’s traditional ferries as well.

Meanwhile, Mr. Davis said, SKIDATA has made site visits to the Authority’s terminals to

make certain that all of its scanning equipment is up and running. Mr. Davis also reported that the tents the Authority recently has installed at the Hyannis and Woods Hole terminals appear to have helped the scanning process by providing shade and thereby increasing the relative brightness of the tickets’ bar codes.

4. Mr. Davis then reported that customers traveling standby from the Nantucket terminal may now check a webpage on the Authority’s website to see their assigned standby numbers instead of having to come back to the terminal for each trip when they are on standby. By looking at the webpage, Mr. Davis said, the customers can see when they need to arrive at the terminal to check in with a ticket seller. Mr. Davis noted that customers can also opt to receive text messages telling them when to arrive.

Mr. Davis further reported that the staff will be implementing a similar webpage on the Authority’s website for customers traveling standby from the Hyannis terminal, but that the information on the webpage will be slightly different from the information on the Nantucket terminal’s standby webpage because a number of customers traveling standby from Hyannis take the high-speed ferry and leave their cars behind at the terminal to be later driven onto the ferries by the Authority.


3 of 12

5. Mr. Davis then provided the Port Council with an update on the status of the Authority’s ferry service for both islands since he last reported on this matter at the May 2, 2018 Port Council meeting. After reporting that the Authority has finished all of the vessels’ major repair periods for the season, Mr. Davis noted that the Authority was still in its “spruce up” period when it cleans and paints the vessels so they look good through the summer and also addresses any issues that have arisen since they were last in repair. Mr. Davis stated that the M/V Eagle was currently being spruced up at the Authority’s Fairhaven Vessel Maintenance Facility, and that it would return to provide service on the Nantucket route this coming Sunday, switching with the M/V Nantucket. In turn, Mr. Davis said, the M/V Nantucket will switch with the M/V Martha’s Vineyard to provide service on the Martha’s Vineyard route while the M/V Martha’s Vineyard is taken to Senesco Shipyard to address an issue with one of its keel coolers leaking, which he said is a warranty item. Mr. Davis noted that the vessel will be taken out of the water there to make certain that the issue is fully addressed and that the project should only take one day.

Mr. Davis further stated that, beginning on June 19th, the Authority’s full summer schedule

will be operating, with:

The M/V Martha’s Vineyard, the M/V Island Home, the M/V Nantucket, the M/V Governor, and the M/V Sankaty (which will be single-crewed to provide four round trips Mondays through Fridays) on the Martha’s Vineyard route; and

The M/V Eagle, the M/V Woods Hole, the M/V Katama and the M/V Iyanough on the

Nantucket route.

Mr. Davis also noted that the M/V Gay Head was originally scheduled to provide service on the Nantucket route at this time instead of the M/V Katama, but that it was in repair at the moment. Once it leaves repair, Mr. Davis said, it will switch with the M/V Katama to provide service on the Nantucket route while the M/V Katama goes to Thames Shipyard for its repair period. In response to a question from Mr. Munier, Mr. Davis stated that the only additional capacity the Authority will have during its full summer schedule will be on weekends and weekday late afternoons and evenings. Mr. Davis noted that, if needed, additional service could be provided during these periods by bringing in additional crews for the M/V Sankaty, as it will only be single-crewed. Mr. Davis also reported that, on May 22nd, the M/V Nantucket lost power to one of its engines due to a clogged fuel strainer as it was rounding Brant Point going to Nantucket, even though the Authority had taken the vessel out on sea trials twice, and the United States Coast Guard had taken it on another sea trial as well, before the vessel was returned to service. Thankfully, Mr. Davis said, the vessel was able to proceed to the dock without incident and the Authority’s Engineering and Maintenance Department was able to diagnose and fix the issue quickly, but he reported that the Authority now has a program of replacing fuel filters on a much more frequent basis than before, even if replacements are not needed, in order to make certain this problem does not arise again.


4 of 12

6. Mr. Davis then observed that the Authority’s service is also being impacted by the landside repair work that is still ongoing, but that all of that work should be completed by the end of next week, including the repair work at the Vineyard Haven terminal (where the sidewalk had collapsed and metal plates were temporarily put down as a transition) and the Oak Bluffs terminal (where they are completing the replacement of stringers and repairing storm damage to the electrical work underneath the dock).

7. Mr. Murphy then reviewed with the Port Council the draft of the Authority’s Business Summary for the month of April 2018. Mr. Murphy also noted that:

the Authority’s expenses in April 2018 included the costs associated with its charter agreement with SeaStreak for the portion of the service provided by the M/V Whaling City Express during that month; and

the staff was keeping an eye on the Authority’s cash balances, which were tightening a bit, but the bond issue that the Authority will be issuing in July 2018 for the Woods Hole terminal reconstruction project will relieve the pressure on those cash balances.

Mr. Murphy stated, in response to a question from Mr. Balco, that the Authority will be selling the bond issue over par and, in response to a question from Mr. Munier, that the Authority expects to receive around $18,000,000 in bond proceeds. Mr. Davis then reported that Thomas S. Cahir, the Administrator of the Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority (CCRTA), had informed him that the Federal Transit Administration had approved the Authority’s grant funding based upon the first year of data the Authority had submitted to the National Transit Database, and that although the CCRTA is the designated recipient of those funds, pursuant to the memorandum of understanding entered into between the Authority and the CCRTA, the Federal Transit Administration has approved the Authority’s request to receive 50% of those funds to be used for its preventative maintenance programs. In response to a question from Mr. Huss, Mr. Davis stated that the amount of funds that will be received by the Authority is approximately $1,571,000. Mr. Davis also noted that the CCRTA has been working on efforts to include other ferry operators in this grant funding program, which would expand the program and bring more money back to be used for ferry and transit operations in communities on Cape Cod. In addition, Mr. Davis said, one of the issues faced by the Authority is the funding formula used by the Federal Transit Administration, which produces far more grant funding if the majority of passengers carried on a ferry route are commuters. Mr. Davis noted that, while the Authority can document those passengers who travel round trip on the same day on the M/V Iyanough, many customers on the Nantucket route travel one way with the Authority and the other way with Hy-Line. Mr. Davis stated that the Cape Cod Commission has therefore taken passenger surveys to find out how many customers make round trips on the same day regardless of which boat line they ride on and that, so far, the survey results have been very promising.


5 of 12

In this regard, Hy-Line Vice President R. Murray Scudder, Jr. stated that Hy-Line similarly would be meeting with Mr. Cahir on Friday to see how it can be helpful and enable more funds to go to the CCRTA.

8. Mr. Davis then provided an update of the status of the completion of the remaining items on the punch list for the Authority’s new administrative offices at 228 Palmer Avenue in Falmouth, which he said is much shorter and nearly completed, reporting that:

While the HVAC contractor has addressed the air leaks in the ducts and has started up the chiller system for the air conditioner, upon the advice of the architect and general contractor, the Authority has hired an engineering firm to perform a “commissioning” of the system pursuant to which they will test the system and verify its performance over an entire 12-month period.

The landscaping crew has been onsite for the past few weeks installing the landscaping around the building, and was in the process of planting hundreds of plants and reseeding the lawn.

The State Building Inspector was onsite the previous week to start the final inspections before issuing the permanent occupancy permit, and the Authority still has to address a couple of issues with respect to the building’s door locks.

Mr. Davis also reported that, to date, the Authority has paid $14,993,000 (approximately 97%) toward the project’s current estimated cost of $15,423,000, including its design and engineering, owner-supplied materials and Authority personnel, and that change orders thus far totaled $950,000, or approximately 7.5% of the original contract price. Mr. Davis also noted that some of those changes orders were due to the problems with the siding that the Authority experienced, and that the staff was still investigating whether the Authority will be able to recover any of those costs from the siding’s manufacturer.

9. Mr. Davis then provided an update on the status of Phase 2 of the Woods Hole terminal reconstruction project, reporting that:

Jay Cashman Inc. has completed work on the passenger loading platforms between Slips 1 and 2.

Bus shelters have been placed on the plaza to offer people some protection from the elements while they are waiting for buses.

Tents have been erected between Slips 1 and 2 to similarly offer passengers waiting to board the ferries some protection from the elements.

Cashman has installed mooring bollards for Slip 3 so that the Authority’s vessels will be able to berth there this summer, reattached the protective material on the center dolphin monopile between Slips 1 and 2, completed the restoration work on the corner fender on the south side of the wharf, and installed a temporary catwalk to allow dockworkers access to the north side of Slip 1.


6 of 12

Cashman also has continued work on the excavation of the wharf and, next Monday, it will begin loading its equipment back onto its barge in preparation for leaving the site by the end of next week for the summer.

The site contractor is continuing to work on the pre-load area to compact the peat, and next week it will pave outside the work area for pedestrian and vehicle access over the summer.

Mr. Davis also reported that, to date, the Authority has paid Cashman $3,129,000 toward the $43,328,000 cost of its contract, including $185,000 of change orders, and that half of the change orders were due to the types of materials that were excavated from the wharf, which Mr. Davis noted was the biggest unknown element of the project. Mr. Davis also observed that it was encouraging that Cashman was able to keep the project moving despite the delays that had been encountered this past winter and early spring. Finally, Mr. Davis reported that the Authority has issued 21 weekly email updates about the status of the terminal reconstruction project to the Woods Hole community to keep them informed about what construction activities would be taking place over the following weeks. In response to a question from Mr. Munier, Mr. Davis stated that he expected the next phases of the project to proceed more smoothly than this past phase, principally because the problems encountered during this past phase were mostly due to the Authority’s delay in vacating the old Woods Hole terminal building, and the need to dredge Slip 2 and make other repairs to Slips 1 and 2 when only one other slip was available. Mr. Davis also noted that the staff’s experience this past phase has shown how important it is to maintain the side passenger loading ramp system to avoid loading and unloading passengers over the transfer bridges so that the vessels can keep closer to their operating schedules when hundreds of passengers are being loaded or unloaded. Mr. Rozum also reported that, in order to reduce the long lines of customers buying tickets at the temporary Woods Hole terminal building, this past Saturday morning the Authority had assigned a ticket seller for two hours at the Thomas B. Landers parking lot to sell tickets to customers while they waited to get onto the shuttle buses. Mr. Rozum stated that this effort was very well received by the customers, and that next weekend the Authority is going to assign two ticket sellers there along with an employee from the Information Technologies Department to provide technical support in the event it is necessary. Finally, Mr. Davis reported that the staff was working with Centerplate to have vending machines installed at the temporary terminal building and between Slips 1 and 2.

10. Mr. Davis then provided an update on the status of the M/V Martha’s Vineyard midlife refurbishment project, reporting that there were now seven punch list items that Senesco still has to complete, and that several of those items pertained to the vessel’s HVAC system for which the Authority will seek reimbursement from Senesco. Mr. Davis also reported that the biggest issue with the vessel is the fact that the side passenger doors leak and there was not enough time to replace the doors this spring. Accordingly, Mr. Davis said, the doors will be replaced next fall when the vessel is back in repair and, meanwhile, Senesco has created troughs under the doors to catch that water where it is leaking.


7 of 12

Mr. Walker also reported that the staff will be meeting with Senesco to review the final

change orders, outstanding invoices, and post-delivery issues that were encountered by the Authority. In response to a question from Mr. Huss, Mr. Walker stated that the Authority’s relationship with Senesco was okay, although he has not heard much from Senesco since several newspaper articles appeared. Nevertheless, Mr. Walker noted that Senesco still wants to have a meeting to discuss all of these issues, and that the Authority needs to have a relationship with Senesco because it is one of only two shipyards in the greater New England region that can dry-dock the Authority’s vessels.

11. Mr. Murphy reviewed with the Port Council the staff’s proposed Budget Policy Statement, noting that it sets forth the guidelines that the staff is proposing to use when preparing the Authority’s 2019 Operating Budget. Mr. Murphy noted that, pursuant to the proposed Budget Policy Statement:

The operating budget’s projected revenues will be based primarily on actual traffic statistics for what will then be the most recent 12 months (August 2017 through July 2018).

The projected vessel operating expenses will be based in part on the 2019 operating schedules the staff will be proposing over the next few months.

The staff will identify significant terminal repairs and maintenance that will be needed.

There are four vessels currently scheduled to be dry-docked during 2019 (the M/V Martha’s Vineyard, the M/V Nantucket, the M/V Woods Hole and the M/V Gay Head).

For the most part, levels of employment will remain the same, but the budget will reflect a full year’s cost of the two new custodial positions, the two new landscaper positions, the new Communications Director, and staffing for the new Operations and Communications Center, and there may be other position changes as a result of the anticipated management consultant’s review of the Authority’s operations.

The Authority’s expected training expenses will take into account the continuation of a number of different training programs.

The Authority will continue to use information technology systems to improve customer service and reduce operating costs where possible. Specifically, the staff will work to increase the Authority’s presence on social media platforms and implement a dedicated Authority mobile app, as well as the sweb.Wallet mobile ticketing app for smartphones and whatever other initiatives are undertaken as a result of the manage-ment consultant’s review of the Authority’s operations.

The budget’s fuel costs will continue to be based on either the then-current forecasts for oil prices during 2019 (plus the premium cost of the hedging program) or next year’s cap prices, whichever is lower. Currently the barrel price of crude oil is trading in the $60-$70 range, while a year ago it was trading in the $45-$50 range. Although the Authority has fallen a little behind in its hedging program, the staff anticipates that the Authority’s vessel fuel prices will be fully hedged for the entire 2019 calendar year by the time the Operating Budget is presented for approval in October 2018.


8 of 12

The budget will include a full year of depreciation for the new administrative office building and the cost of the M/V Martha’s Vineyard mid-life refurbishment.

Sufficient fund balances will be maintained to meet the Authority’s scheduled debt service requirements and to adequately fund cash transfers to the Replacement Fund in an amount not less than this year’s anticipated transfers of $9,417,000 but not to exceed the Authority’s projected depreciation expenses for 2019, which is currently estimated at $10,079,000.

The staff will make all efforts to minimize the need for any additional rate increases.

In response to a question from Mr. Huss, Mr. Murphy stated that the staff will consider whether the Operating Budget’s projected revenues should be based exclusively on traffic figures for the most recent twelve months, or whether certain adjustments should be made to those figures. For example, Mr. Murphy said, when projecting passenger revenues for this year’s Operating Budget, the staff used historical traffic trends for the M/V Iyanough, since it was out of service for approximately a month last summer. The Port Council then voted unanimously to recommend that the Authority Members approve the management staff’s proposed 2019 Budget Policy Statement.

12. Mr. Davis reported that, after the last Port Council meeting, the Authority Members voted to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for management consulting services to undertake a comprehensive review of the Authority’s operations, including its vessel operations, fleet maintenance, management structure, public communications and information technol-ogies. Meanwhile, Mr. Davis said, the staff was starting to keep track of the ferries’ on-time performance, both with respect to when vessels arrive and when they depart.

Mr. Davis noted that 23 firms have taken out the RFP, that the staff has begun receiving

questions from several of them about the RFP, and that proposals in response to the RFP are currently due at 2:00 p.m. next Tuesday, June 12th. Mr. Davis also stated that, because the Authority Members did not address certain business items during their meeting last month, an additional meeting has been scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on June 12th to conduct the Authority’s usual business, and that the sole purpose of the June 19th meeting will be to evaluate the proposals received in response of the RFP.

Mr. Sayers then described what the process will be for evaluating the proposals received

in response to the RFP, noting that hopefully the proposals will be able to be given to the Authority Members at their June 12th meeting, as well as to the Port Council members who also are in attendance at that meeting. Mr. Sayers stated that, in any event, the proposals will be provided to all of the Port Council members because, during the June 19th meeting, the Authority Members may want to ask the Port Council members for their opinions about the proposals. In this regard, Mr. Sayers observed that the evaluation of the proposals will take place in public session to ensure as much transparency about the process as possible.


9 of 12

Mr. Sayers then expressed his concern over whether the current deadline for the submission of proposals might need to be delayed if one or more of the consulting firms were to ask any questions about the RFP that raise policy issues that should be decided by the Authority Members rather than himself. Mr. Sayers noted that, if any such questions were raised, the Authority Members would not be able to meet to discuss them until Friday afternoon at the earliest (assuming a notice of the meeting could be posted today in compliance with the Open Meeting Law), and that in fairness the consulting firms should know before then whether they are still going to be required to submit their proposals by 2:00 p.m. the following Tuesday. Therefore, Mr. Sayers stated that, if any such questions were raised, he planned to consult with the Authority’s Dukes County Member, Marc N. Hanover, about them so that the consulting firms can know the answers to their questions as soon as possible or whether the deadline for submitting proposals is being delayed so that the Authority Members can discuss the issues. But Ms. Gladfelter expressed her concern about Mr. Sayers consulting only one Authority Member about such issues when the five Authority Members represent five different communities and may have different thoughts about those issues. It was for this reason, Ms. Gladfelter said, that she felt at least a committee should address these issues, and that the committee should have several Port Council members on it as well so that the viewpoints of as many of the Authority’s constituent communities as possible are represented. But Mr. Sayers observed that, even if he were to consult with the committee that had been established to shepherd the RFP process, which was comprised of Mr. Hanover and the Authority’s New Bedford Member Moira E. Tierney, that committee still had to comply with the Open Meeting Law. As a result, Mr. Sayers said, he still would be faced with the same dilemma if any significant policy questions were raised by any of the consulting firms, and he asked the Port Council members what their thoughts were on the subject. In response:

Mr. Lowell stated that such decisions should be left to the staff in the same way that these types of decisions have been handled by the staff with respect to all of the Authority’s other large projects.

Mr. Huss stated that, in deciding whether to postpone the deadline for the submission of proposals, he thought it would be appropriate to consider how many consulting firms are asking for an extension, how long of an extension they are asking for, and possibly which firms are asking for an extension, and that he felt in some circumstances a one-week extension might be appropriate.

Ms. Shufelt observed that the consulting firms were being asked to put together an obviously big package, possibly with the involvement of subcontractors. Therefore, he stated that if it appeared advantageous to the Authority, it might be appropriate to give an extension of a week or so.

Mr. Balco stated that he would prefer to maintain the RFP’s current schedule and, in response to his question, Mr. Sayers confirmed that the consulting firms will be required to disclose their subcontractors and describe what work they will be performing.


10 of 12

Mr. Munier stated that he thought the Authority should push ahead and maintain the current schedule, observing that 23 firms appeared interested in the project and only two or three are currently asking for extensions. Mr. Munier also noted that, at this point, the public would like something to happen as quickly as possible.

Mr. Jones then recounted how he has participated several times in evaluating proposals submitted in response to RFPs and asked whether the Authority Members will have the opportunity to interview any of the consulting firms. In response, Mr. Sayers stated that the RFP provides the Authority Members with the opportunity to request presentations from consulting firms, but that the decision whether to make any such requests would be up to the Authority Members themselves.

13. Mr. Davis noted that the agenda for today’s Port Council meeting included his performance evaluation, but with everything else going on, the evaluation has been deferred until next month. In this regard, Mr. Davis observed that the Authority Members have not even had a chance to discuss the evaluation process itself.

14. Josh Goldstein of the Mansion House in Vineyard Haven stated that he was appearing at the Port Council’s meeting today representing a dozen hotels on Martha’s Vineyard whose revenues were all substantially lower this year. Indeed, Mr. Goldstein said, his revenues were down by $150,000. Mr. Goldstein stated that he has complete faith in the Authority’s ability to rebound from this disaster and that he is excited about a management consultant reviewing the Authority’s operations, but that the Authority needs to do more with its public relations, and spend more money on advertisements in the Boston Globe and the New York Times, as well as on more outreach. Mr. Goldstein declared that people are not coming to Martha’s Vineyard because they have a residual concern that they aren’t going to be able to get back. For example, Mr. Goldstein said, a customer of his who has been staying at the Mansion House each August for years has cancelled and instead is staying in Truro because he knows that he will be able to get back from there. Mr. Goldstein stated that the Authority needs to do something to reset broader public opinion and encourage people to stay on the island, observing that he is not even sold out during Independence Day, the week of the Agricultural Fair or for the fireworks, and that he hasn’t seen revenues this low for ten years.

Mr. Davis stated that he also has discussed these issues with Nancy Gardella, the Executive

Director of the Martha’s Vineyard Chamber of Commerce, who also has expressed some concerns about fewer tourists visiting the island this summer. But Mr. Davis noted that the Authority has 7% more summer reservations at this time of the year than it had at the same time last year, and the number of customers who have cancelled reservations is about the same as it was last year. Mr. Davis observed that the Authority needs to communicate that it has availability due to the fact that it is operating five ferries during the weekdays this summer, and that a lot of passengers on those ferries end up being day trippers. Therefore, Mr. Davis stated that he would be looking at all of these communications issues and that part of the message that the Authority has to get out is that it is up and running.


11 of 12

However, Mr. Lowell cautioned Mr. Davis that, if the events of the last few months had not occurred, everyone would now be arguing about too many people, too many cars, and too many trucks coming to the islands, and how the islands are saturated. Mr. Lowell asked how the Authority can say it wants more business and then say that it doesn’t want any more business. Mr. Lowell also observed that people were becoming nervous about traveling to Martha’s Vineyard due to all of the negative publicity that Martha’s Vineyard residents have generated themselves, especially on their own social media, and that they should have reacted to the Authority’s problems in a more calm and constructive manner. Mr. Lowell also stated that he does not know whether the Authority’s problems have caused the Mansion House to lose any reservations, but that Martha’s Vineyard residents have to allow things to run their course, observing that the island has the benefit of 28 ferry trips a day.

Mr. Munier observed that it is easier for an organization to lose its reputation than it is to

get it back, and he suggested that the Authority should work proactively to accelerate that process through good tactical communications. Although Mr. Munier acknowledged that this was easier said than done and that he didn’t know exactly what the formula was, he observed that the Authority has hired a talented Communications Director and that it should be more proactive about regaining its reputation than simply allowing this matter to run its due course.

But Mr. Lowell cautioned that the Authority still has to be careful about competing and

being perceived as being too much like a business, and he stated that everyone should hope for good weather because the weather so far this year has not been helping anyone.

Then, at approximately 10:51 a.m., the Port Council unanimously voted to adjourn their meeting that day. A TRUE RECORD _________________________________ Eric W. Shufelt, Secretary


12 of 12

Documents and Exhibits Used at the Port Council’s June 6, 2018 Meeting

1. Agenda for the Port Council’s June 6, 2018 Meeting (posted May 31, 2018, with the last revision June 1, 2018).

2. Minutes of the Meeting of the Port Council in Public Session on May 2, 2018 (draft).

3. Printout of a screenshot of the webpage of the Authority’s website showing the standby vehicles for the Nantucket terminal, taken on June 6, 2018

4. Business Summary for the Month of April 2018 (draft).

5. 2019 Budget Policy Statement (draft).