Memorandum
Date: September 18, 2026
To: Thomas B. Modica, City Manager
From: Joshua Hickman, Director of Public Works
For: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Subject: Bikeshare Request for Proposals PW-25-631 – Protest Determination and Response to Concerns Raised
The City of Long Beach (City) has operated a public BikeShare Program (Program) since 2016. The City owns the bike fleet and all supporting infrastructure, including approximately 1,042 bicycle racks located across 112 parking hubs, and retains all Program data and revenue paid by users. The Program is funded through Proposition A and does not utilize General Fund dollars.
In 2025, the Program recorded more than 79,000 rentals and generated $210,615 in user revenue. The fleet currently consists entirely of pedal bicycles, with no electric bicycles or associated charging infrastructure. Approximately 480 bicycles are in working condition, while an additional 250 remain out of service pending maintenance primarily attributable to the limited availability of replacement controllers. The Program currently requires two contracts: one with Pedal Movement, Inc. (Pedal Movement) for operations and maintenance of the fleet and one with Mobility Cloud for the software platform.
As part of the approved FY25 budget, the City created an in-house mobility division to enhance transportation, livability and environmental sustainability. The division was created within Public Works Department (PW) to manage and expand the program including the addition of e-bike options.
On October 1, 2024 City Council approved a six-month extension with an option for an additional six-month extension with Pedal Movement to operate and maintain the program while the team was hired and the transition to the new model took place.
On September 16, 2025 City Council approved another extension to September 30, 2026 to provide continued operation while a competitive procurement for qualified vendors took place. The current contract expires on September 30, 2026.
Request for Proposals
On December 16, 2025, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) PW-25-631 (Attachment A) to deliver a fully integrated, citywide BikeShare Program . The RFP established a Year One baseline goal of deploying 700 pedal -assist electric bicycles, invited proposers to offer retrofit solutions to extend the life of the City's existing bicycles, and requested a hybrid parking model plan. The deadline for written questions was
Bikeshare Request for Proposals PW -25-631 – Protest Determination and Response to Concerns Raised
September 18, 2026
January 13, 2026, and responses were posted January 27, 2026. Seven addenda were issued. The City received four proposals by the March 3, 2026 deadline, from Drop Mobility, Pedal Movement, Lyft Bikes and Scooters, LLC, and Bluesky Energy LLC.
A selection committee comprising three members of the Department of Public Works and one member of the Department of Technology and Innovation evaluated the proposals using the criteria and weightings published in Section 3.2 of the RFP, conducted reference checks, and received vendor presentations. Drop Mobility received a final score of 91 percent. Pedal Movement received a base score of 79 percent and a final score of 89 percent following application of the full 10 percent local preference credit. Lyft Bikes and Scooters, LLC received a score of 73 percent. Bluesky Energy LLC received a base score of 48 percent and a final score of 58 percent following application of the l ocal preference credit.
Drop Mobility scored highest in three of the four evaluation criteria: Method of Approach, the highest -weighted criterion, under which phased deployment, scalable operations, parking management, and major event surge planning were evaluated; Communications and Reporting; and Reasonableness of Cost. Pedal Movement scored highe r than Drop Mobility only in Organizational Capacity and Experience. The Notice of Intent to Award was published on May 11, 2026 initiating a standard five-business day protest submittal period ending on May 18, 2026.
Protest and Determination
On May 15, 2026 the protest submittal period was extended 10 days to June 1, 2026 to ensure all interested parties had adequate time to review . Additional extensions were completed on May 28, and June 3, with a final extension to June 9, 2026 of the protest submittal period.
Pedal Movement filed a protest of the Notice of Intent to Award on June 9, 2026 (Attachment B), after the City extended the protest period multiple times to allow the firm and all proposers additional time to complete its submission after having received requested information. The protest included claims regarding responsiveness, evaluation criteria, and release of information after the evaluation was completed. The City through its Purchasing Agent addressed each claim and, on June 29, 2026, determined that there was no basis to support the protest (Attachment C). Under Section 5.5 of the RFP, it is made clear that the protest procedures are the proposer's sole and exclusive remedy, and the determination of the Purchasing Agent is final.
On July 22, 2026, Pedal Movement circulated a memorandum to interested parties (Attachment D) raising concerns beyond those originally outlined in the protest and addressed in the protest response . On September 16, 2026, the City received correspondence from counsel for Pedal Movement, which is under review by the City Attorney.
Bikeshare Request for Proposals PW -25-631 – Protest Determination and Response to Concerns Raised
September 18, 2026
The sections that follow set out what the RFP required, what the proposals contained, and what the contract provides.
Minimum Fleet Size Qualification
Section 3.1 of the RFP, Minimum Qualifications, provides that to be eligible a proposer must demonstrate a "proven track record managing fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles in urban environments comparable to Long Beach." No proposer submitted a question regarding this provision during the question period, and no addendum modified it. The City applied the provision to all four proposers on the same basis, considering the totality of each proposer's fleets across the urban environments in which it works, and determined that all four proposers were responsive. The RFP separately provides, in Sections 2.1.2(i), 3.1, and 3.2, that field operations may be performed by the proposer's own employees or by a qualified local subcontractor.
Drop Mobility's proposal states that it provides bikeshare services in more than 60 municipalities and campuses across 17 states, that it has delivered more than 1,000 electric bicycles to the New Orleans system since 2021, and that its Albany and Pioneer Valley systems each operate 600 to 750 vehicles with expansion to more than 1,000 underway. Drop Mobility has since confirmed that the New Orleans and Pioneer Valley systems each own more than 1,000 bicycles, that its total fleet footprint exceeds 10,000 vehicles, and that it operates systems directly and also partners with third-party operators, in the same structure that Pedal Movement and its proposed subcontractor, Bicycle Transit Systems, proposed for Long Beach. Pedal Movement's proposal did not state a fleet size for any of its five references, two of which are event bike valet and maintenance services rather than bikeshare systems and two of which are systems provided by Bicycle Transit Systems. Pedal Movement's proposal describes the Long Beach flee t as approximately 1,000 bicycles; the RFP described the fleet as roughly 650 bicycles in working condition with an additional 250 requiring major maintenance.
Equipment Security and Fleet Availability
Fleet availability is a function of both how a bicycle is designed and how a system is operated. The electric bicycle proposed for Long Beach is Drop Mobility's current model and reflects design changes Drop Mobility has made in response to conditions observed in New Orleans and in other markets. Each bicycle carries an electronic front wheel lock built into the hub, a rear wheel ring lock built into the smart connected unit and shielded by a shroud covering the lock and rear wheel, an electronic lock secur ing the battery to the frame, and a cable lock that secures the bicycle to any rack or hub. Where charging docks are installed, the dock provides a fourth locking mechanism. Every bicycle has GPS and cellular connectivity, tamper detection with motion alar ms, and remote disable capability; the electric assist stops if the connected unit is damaged. Tamper -resistant fasteners, anti-theft pedals, and puncture -proof tires are standard. Continually updating Bikeshare Request for Proposals PW -25-631 – Protest Determination and Response to Concerns Raised
September 18, 2026
bike and hub designs to include tamper-resistant features and anti-theft bikes is industry standard best practice.
In New Orleans, Drop Mobility supplies the bicycles, docks, and software platform, and a local nonprofit, Blue Krewe, operates the system. Drop Mobility reports that this model of bicycle has experienced a theft and vandalism rate of less than two percent year to date in New Orleans, inclusive of the Carnival and festival season. Drop Mobility has completed a five-year term in New Orleans, and the city is extending the agreement for a further five years with the addition of up to 2,000 bicycles and 500 charging stations over the next two years. In Long Beach, Drop Mobility will supply the bicycles, docks, and software platform and will operate the system, providing both equipment and operations under a single contract and a single point of accountability for the fleet's condition and availability.
Parking Model and Cost
Section 2.1.2(d) of the RFP requested a hybrid parking model plan incorporating the City's established parking zones, incentives to park at designated hubs, and electrification of some parking locations, and Section 3.2 scored parking design and parking management options under Method of Approach. Drop Mobility proposed a hybrid system in which bicycles lock to charging docks and to the City's existing bicycle racks, with 350 charging docks deployed in Year One. Pedal Movement proposed a docked system with 1,320 non-charging docks and 80 charging docks that are required for operating the full fleet of 700 bicycles, to maintain a 2:1 parking to bike ratio, as is industry standard . The docked system does not allow for integration with the City’s current bike parking infrastructure and leaves no flexibility for users.
The proposed electric bicycles were similarly priced, at $2,700 per unit in the Drop Mobility proposal and $2,859 per unit in the Pedal Movement proposal; docking infrastructure accounted for the principal difference in Year One cost. Drop Mobility's propo sed Year One cost, including start -up capital and first -year operations, was $4,998,040 and was the only proposal to include the value -added benefit of retrofitting the City's existing bicycles. Pedal Movement's proposed Year One cost was $9,738,771. Given available budget, the high cost of Year One capital expenditures in Pedal Movement’s proposal would have forced the City to procure a smaller fleet than the RFP specified. Year One is the only period in which all four proposals priced a comparable 700-bicycle baseline.
Contract Structure, Cost Transparency, and Performance
The Program currently operates under a fixed contract amount, paid regardless of the number of bicycles deployed, in addition to a separate software agreement, limiting the City's visibility into the cost of individual Program components. The recommened contract being considered by City Council would consolidate equipment, software, operations, and maintenance under a single agreement and reimburses variable operating expenses at Bikeshare Request for Proposals PW -25-631 – Protest Determination and Response to Concerns Raised
September 18, 2026
actual cost, with each cost presented and reviewed by City staff. Program revenue is applied against invoices before the City remits payment. The not -to-exceed amount established by the recommended contract would be the maximum authorized reimbursement for eligible expenses and does not constitute a guaranteed payment to the vendor.
Unit pricing for electric bicycles and charging docks would be fixed in the recommended contract for the full term. The management fee would be tiered to the fleet actually deployed, with a base tier for a fleet of up to 800 vehicles and higher tiers as the fleet grows beyond 800 and beyond 1,500 vehicles. As an incentive to maintain the fleet in good repair, t he management fee would be reduced to 85 percent when monthly fleet availability falls between 70 and 79.9 percent, and to 70 percent when availability falls below 70 percent; three consecutive months below 80 percent availability would constitute an event of default.
Service Levels and Staffing
The selected proposal includes 27,040 hours dedicated to maintenance, rebalancing, warehouse, and customer service in Year One, compared to 26,624 hours in the Pedal Movement proposal, a difference of 416 hours (1.5%). The selected proposal assigns three management positions to the Program, compared to six in the incumbent's proposal.
The difference in proposed labor cost is attributable to wage rates, benefit loading, and the difference in supervisory positions, and n ot to a reduction in the hours of service dedicated to the Program. The current contract supports 19 full -time positions. The selected contractor would operate from a warehouse in Long Beach, would staff 16 local full-time positions to support the Year One fleet, and already has two existing full-time employees and three contractors who reside in Long Beach, including its Head of Western Region Operations . Drop Mobility has agreed to interview current Program employees to fill the remaining positions.
Transparency of the Procurement Record
The Notice of Intent to Award, the Selection Memorandum, and the full evaluation toolkit, including the scores assigned by each evaluator, are publicly available documents. The RFP, the protest, the Purchasing Agent's determination, and the July 22, 2026 memorandum circulated by Pedal Movement are attached to this memorandum.
Next Steps
Two items will be brought to City Council on September 22, 2026. The first is the adoption of specifications and award of a contract to Drop Mobility for the operation, maintenance, and modernization of the BikeShare Program. The second is an amendment to Contract No. 36734 with Pedal Movement, Inc. to extend the term from September 30, 2026 to December 31, 2026 at the increased rate proposed by Pedal Movement , so that the Bikeshare Request for Proposals PW -25-631 – Protest Determination and Response to Concerns Raised
September 18, 2026
existing fleet remains in service while the new program is established. Should City Council award the contracts as recommended, the contractor will establish local operations, begin recruitment, and order equipment by the end of the year . Drop Mobility will work collaboratively with the City and Pedal Movement to assume operation of the existing bicycle fleet. The new e -bike fleet is anticipated to be delivered and deployed in early 2027.
If you have any questions, please contact Willie Walker, Parking and Mobility Officer, at [email protected] or (562) 570-4649.
ATTACHMENTS
CC: DAWN MCINTOSH, CITY ATTORNEY
DOUGLAS P. HAUBERT, CITY PROSECUTOR
LAURA L. DOUD, CITY AUDITOR
APRIL WALKER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
TERESA CHANDLER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
MEREDITH REYNOLDS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
GRACE YOON, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
TYLER BONANNO-CURLEY, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
KEVIN LEE, CHIEF PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER
MONIQUE DE LA GARZA, CITY CLERK (
DEPARTMENT HEADS
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 1
1 City of
Long Beach
Request for Proposals RFP - PW-25-631
Bikeshare
Attachment A
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 2
Please read this entire
document carefully as it
contains important
information essential to
your proposal
Overview
Summary
The City of Long Beach is soliciting proposals from
qualified and experienced contractors to deliver a fully integrated, citywide BikeShare Program under a single
contract. The City seeks a turnkey solution that
provides a reliable and scalable fleet of 70 0 pedal -
assist e-bikes, with the option for proposers to offer
retrofit solutions to extend the life of the City’s existing fleet of pedal bikes. The program must be supported
by a secure, multilingual, ADA -compliant mobile
application, or web-based back-end software for real-
time operations, maintenance tracking, white -label
branding and full compliance with Mobility Data
Specification (MDS).
Key Dates
Release Date: December 16, 2025
Optional Pre-Proposal Meeting: 1:00 PM (PST),
January 6, 2026
Questions Due to the City: 11:00 AM (PST), January
13, 2026
Proposals Due: 11:00 AM (PST), February 10, 2026
The City reserves the right to modify these dates at any time, with appropriate notice to prospective Contractors.
Proposal Information
Instructions for what to include in your proposal and
how to submit it are detailed in Section 4.
Proposals must be submitted electronically via
LongBeachBuys.com.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 3
This is a competitive process, and the City intends to
award the opportunity based on the information
submitted in the proposal that best meets the needs
of the City.
Official Contact
Rachel Yos
[email protected]
All communication with the City related to this RFP must be directed to the contact listed above.
Assistance & Resources
For assistance using Long Beach Buys , please contact us directly
Customer Service Form
[email protected]
(562) 570-6200
Additional support available for small businesses in Long Beach
BizCare
BizCare staff connect business owners and nonprofit leaders to important resources and information, such as grants, loans, technical assistance, information on City policies, and more.
562-570-4BIZ (4249)
[email protected]
Request Assistance Form
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 4
Contents
BizCare
1 The Opportunity
1.1 Project Summary
1.2 Background
1.3 Goals
1.4 Award Terms
2 Scope of Work
2.1 Description of Services
2.2 Performance Metrics & Contract Management
2.2.1 Performance Metrics
2.2.2 Contract Management
2.2.3 Contract Payment
3 How We Choose
3.1 Minimum Qualifications
3.2 Evaluation Criteria
3.3 Local Preference
4 Proposal Instructions & Content
4.1 Timelines & Instructions
4.2 Proposal Content
4.3 Narrative Proposal Template
5 Terms & Conditions
5.1 Acronyms/Definitions
5.2 Solicitation Terms & Conditions
5.3 Contract Terms & Conditions
5.4 Additional Requirements
5.5 Protest Procedures
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 5
1 The Opportunity
1.1 Project Summary
The City of Long Beach (City) is soliciting proposals from qualified and experienced contractors to deliver a fully integrated, citywide Bikeshare Program under a single contract.
The City seeks a turnkey solution that provides a reliable and scalable fleet of pedal- assist bicycles that are supported by a secure, multilingual, ADA- compliant user interface delivered via mobile app, a web- based option, or both; backend software for real -time operations and maintenance tracking; white-label branding; and compliance with MDS.
The successful proposer will provide all equipment, staffing, and services necessary to ensure reliable daily bike deployment, rebalancing, on -demand and routine maintenance, and responsive customer service across all neighborhoods, with emphasis on equita ble access, non-digital/unbanked payment options, and first/last-mile transit connectivity.
This solicitation builds on the City’s existing bikeshare program and supports long -range frameworks such as Elevate ’28, the Climate Action Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan, and Vision Zero. Proposers should demonstrate proven ability to operate at scale, de liver ADA- accessible and multilingual service, support transparent MDS data reporting, and meet surge needs for major City events through scalable deployment plans.
This RFP is limited to bikeshare. Other shared mobility modes, such as scooters, continue to operate under separate City permits and are not included in this solicitation. The bikeshare program supports the City’s goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), improve safety for vulnerable users, expand transportation access for under -served communities, and prepare for increased demand related to the 2028 Olympic Games.
1.2 Background
The City of Long Beach continues to strengthen its bikeshare program in response to growing demand from residents, students, and visitors. In 2024, pedal bikes accounted for over 80,000 rentals, demonstrating a consistent need for short -trip, first/last- mile connections. This RFP focuses on expanding the fleet to include pedal -assist bicycles and electrified docking stations while retaining pedal bikes, consolidating operations, and preparing for increased demand related to the 2028 Olympic Games. The progr am aligns with Elevate ’28 and other City transportation and climate planning initiatives.
The City of Long Beach, California, is a vibrant, urban coastal community and the seventh most populous city in the state. With nearly 500,000 residents, Long Beach is known for its unique blend of dense urban development, a strong sense of neighborhood id entity, and an active, outdoor -oriented lifestyle —all of which make it an ideal environment for bikeshare solutions. The city also hosts California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), a Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 6
leading public university with over 40,000 students. The university’s large commuter and on-campus population represent a key demographic for sustainable and accessible transportation alternatives, particularly bicycles.
Long Beach’s transit network includes Long Beach Transit, which offers bus service across the city, and the Los Angeles Metro A Line, which connects downtown Long Beach directly to downtown Los Angeles. Despite this connectivity, the demand for bikeshare services has grown, particularly in areas where parking is limited or where traditional public transit may not meet real-time or short-distance travel needs.
The City of Long Beach, Department of Public Works (Public Works) is responsible for maintaining and enhancing the City’s public infrastructure and services, including its multi- modal transportation network. The multi-modal transportation network in the City includes public transit, biking, walking, and mobility options that work together to provide safe, efficient, and sustainable travel citywide. As the lead department overseeing the bikeshare program, Public Works plays a central role in implementing sus tainable mobility solutions that align with Long Beach’s Climate Action Plan , Vision Zero, Bicycle Master Plan , and Elevate ‘28 initiatives . The Department manages permits, public right- of-way (PROW) regulations, mobility infrastructure, and public engagement related to bikeshare services.
Public Works seeks a contractor that can partner with the City to deliver a citywide, bikeshare system that advances environmental, equity, and congestion -reduction goals, specially in high demand corridors like Downtown Long Beach, Shoreline, and Olympic venue areas. The selected operator must coordinate closely with Public Works on fleet management, compliance tracking, data reporting, and infrastructure integration.
1.2.1 Bikeshare Program
The City of Long Beach established its Bikeshare Program in 2016 to provide an accessible, sustainable transportation option for residents and visitors. Since 2017, the program has operated with two (2) separate contracts. One is for local operations and maintenance with Pedal Movement. The other contract is with Mobility Cloud for Social Bicycles (SoBi) hardware and software platforms, with the City maintaining ownership of all bikes in the fleet. Long Beach’s bikeshare operates as a hybrid system, combining docked and dockless features. While users are encouraged to return bikes to designated docking hubs, they may also lock bikes to any legally permitted street furniture for an additional fee. The system currently comprises 112 parking hubs with approxim ately 1,042 bike racks strategically placed throughout the City.
The fleet consists of roughly 650 beach cruiser bicycles that are currently in working condition, with an additional 250 requiring major maintenance before they can be put back Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 7
into service. The service area covers the entire City limits, including recent expansions on the CSULB campus. The City has prioritized expanding bikeshare access to under -served neighborhoods, such as North and West Long Beach, to improve equity and transportation options citywide. Ridership has steadily increased each year, with over 80,000 rides recorded in 2024. In 2023, the City introduced the BikeShare for All program, which offers a reduced $5 annual membership fee for residents enrolled in state or federal assistance programs. This program includes 90 minutes of daily ride time and has experienced consistent growth since its launch.
1.2.2 Permit Program
The City of Long Beach also manages a permit program for shared scooters and e -bikes operated by private companies. This program regulates fleet size, establishes operating rules, and enforces compliance through designated drop zones and penalties. The Per mit Program is administered separately and is not part of this solicitation.
1.2.3 Mobility Division
The Mobility Division (Division) within Public Works is committed to advancing a reliable, equitable, and sustainable multi- modal transportation network by delivering a safe, accessible, and diverse mobility system. The Division manages bikeshare, micro- shuttles, and e-scooters. For the purposes of this contract, bikeshare will be the focus. The Division will continue equity strategies such as BikeShare for All and requires the contractor to provide affordable, access ible, and multilingual services. Preparing for the 2028 Olympic Games, the bikeshare operator must demonstrate capacity to scale fleet availability for major events, expand service to under-served areas, and align with the City’s sustainability and safety frameworks.
1.3 Goals
To ensure the bikeshare program meets community needs and delivers public value, the City has established a series of general outcome -based performance goals. These goals reflect the City’s commitment to safety, reduced vehicle dependence, expanded access for under-served populations, and data -driven program oversight. The following outcome statements define what success will loo k like under this contract and guide vendor accountability throughout the life of the program.
1. Health and Safety of Residents
A successful program will ensure all bikeshare vehicles and operations contribute to a safer public realm for all users, particularly children, seniors, and people with disabilities. This includes deploying bicycles and equipment that meet all applicable federal, state, and local safety standards, including standards for e -bike electrical Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 8
systems; executing timely safety interventions , and delivering a consistent program of multilingual education and community outreach that reduces injuries and builds rider confidence across the City’s network.
2. Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
A high -performing bikeshare program will lead to measurable reductions in car dependency by shifting a significant volume of trips to shared bicycles. The bikeshare program within the City will decrease the need for parking in parking-impacted areas and pr ovide first mile/last minute solutions that compliment pre -existing transit options.
3. Sustainability
An expanded bikeshare fleet, including pedal- assist bicycles , should offer transit options for short distances that can decrease the need for gas -powered transit options and decrease overall CO2 emissions. This goal aligns with the City’s larger Climate Action Plan goals, and sustainability efforts for end of life of vehicles should be considered in program outlines.
1.4 Award Terms
This contract will be for a period of three (3) years with the option to renew for two (2) additional one-year periods. The total contract term will not exceed five (5) years. 2 Scope of Work
2.1 Description of Services
The Contractor shall provide a comprehensive, full -service bikeshare program that advances the City of Long Beach’s goals for transportation safety, sustainability, equity, and Olympic readiness. Services must include the provision, operation, and maintena nce of a City-owned fleet of bicycles and software. The program should support multi- modal integration, meet all safety and accessibility standards, and operate under a performance- based contract with continuous service available citywide. Fleet availability is expected to be maintained at a minimum of 700 bicycles, scaling up based on demand or during special events, with operations and reporting structured on a daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis.
Note: The City reserves the right to award only one or part of the scopes described herein, based on its needs and the proposals received.
1. Financial Sustainability and Infrastructure
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 9
a. City-owned bikeshare (no leasing). The City will retain ownership of all bicycles and any other physical infrastructure paid for by the City via Prop A funds.
Proposals must include:
i. purchase pricing for bicycles/pedal assist e -bikes and parking/hub equipment;
ii. software licensing terms and pricing;
iii. an operations and maintenance (O&M) budget;
iv. a phased deployment plan to reach the baseline and scale for events; v. a clear delineation of which parking -infrastructure elements are City - funded vs. vendor-provided.
vi. The system must support City -directed fare changes without additional cost to the City.
b. Sponsorship: Contractors may propose sponsorship or advertising models to offset costs, but all content must comply with the City’s Advertising Policy and Long Beach Municipal Code § 16.55. Operator financial must exclude sponsorship revenue; sponsorship, if approved, will not be relied upon to offset O&M pricing.
2. Fleet and Curb Management
a. Fleet Procurement: Contractor shall deploy and maintain a fleet of bicycles including, at minimum, pedal-assist e-bikes that meet industry safety standards.
Vendors may propose multiple bicycle types (e.g., step- through, cargo, adaptive) to meet ridership preferences and accessibility needs. The City will not allow Class 2 or Class 3 e-bikes. All e-bikes must be pedal assist. b. Fleet Availability: Bicycles must be operable citywide and scalable to support increased ridership during high-demand events such as the 2028 Olympics. c. Fleet Size: Establish a baseline of approximately 700 bicycles, with options to scale up for events or increased demand over time. Multiple bicycle types may be proposed; the final mix is subject to City approval.
d. Parking Model: Provide a hybrid parking model plan that includes already established bikeshare parking zones throughout the City, tactics for incentivizing users to park in designated hubs, and proposals for having some parking drop zones be electrified. New parking zone designs should vary in size depending on location. All parking locations should address PROW and ADA access concerns. e. Parking Availability: The Contractor will work with the City to create branded hubs with wayfinding signage that incorporates parking for all vehicle types. The vendor shall ensure the parking availability to fleet size is 2:1. The Contractor will work wit h the City to propose new parking locations to expand the program.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 10
Contractor should provide clear procedures for rebalancing operations. These details must be included as part of a final Maintenance & Operations Plan. f. Public Right-of-Way Management: The contractor shall maintain public safety and ADA compliance by ensuring proper parking for a hybrid model of docked stations and dockless options. The parking plan must address prevention of obstruction of sidewalks, ramps, and pathways.
g. Asset Lifecycle and Maintenance: The contractor shall implement a lifecycle management plan that includes routine inspections, preventative maintenance, and environmentally responsible end-of-life processes for vehicles and batteries. h. Geofencing: The contractor will adhere to all pre -existing City slow zones, no parking zones, and no ride zones. These zones will be made clear on the operator mobile app and on the devices themselves. All changes to any geofence must be adhered to by the contractor.
i. Local Operations: The Contractor will have W -2 local employees or subcontract local operations out to a local vendor for maintenance, rebalancing, battery swapping, hub inspections, and other field operations. The Contractor or subcontractor will have a ph ysical facility within City of Long Beach boundaries for conducting maintenance, charging batteries, or other local operations.
3. Equity and Community Access
a. Multilingual: All program materials, digital content, and customer service should be available in English, Spanish, Khmer, and Tagalog.
b. Equity Programs: Contractor must provide programming that offers equitable access to vehicles across the City, which may be in the form of targeted zone deployment or other methods approved by the City. The Contractor must also provide equitable pricing pr ograms that are designed to continue or build upon the City’s current BikeShare for All program. Both programs must be available to unbanked and non- smartphone users and be promoted through community outreach.
c. Unbanked and Non- Smartphone Users: Provide cash purchase options and access points across the City. Offer tap cards or other non- smartphone access methods at multiple locations.
d. Community Engagement and Outreach: Operator shall have a ridership growth plan included in the community outreach plan that targets new riders in under - served areas, transit riders, and infrequent users on equity programs, safety, and system navigation. Outreach should be conducted throughout the City and be Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 11
provided in multiple languages. There should be a minimum of four (4) outreach events per year included in the plan.
e. Event Participation: The Contractor will provide bicycle access, and wayfinding signage for bikeshare parking for major City-sponsored events including, but not limited to, the following: The Acura Grand Prix, 2028 Olympics, and Open Street Events.
4. Technology and System Integration
a. User Platform and Application: The contractor shall maintain a user -friendly mobile application (iOS and Android) and/or a web- based, app-less option, that enables real-time vehicle location, trip planning, secure payments, and access to multilingual customer support.
b. Device Technology and Security: Each vehicle must include GPS, wireless connectivity, and tamper-resistant hardware. The platform must support remote disabling, geofencing, theft deterrents, and data encryption. Devices must enforce no-ride, slow-zones, and no-parking zones digitally and report violations for corrective action.
c. System Compatibility and Integration: The program must be designed to integrate with City infrastructure and other transit technologies, including but not limited to, Google Maps, Apple Maps, and Transit. Contractor shall collaborate with Public Works and partner agencies to ensure compatibility and compliance. d. Data: MDS data stream must be provided to the City and third party operators, such as Populous, for compliance and monitoring.
5. Public Safety, Access, and Enforcement
a. Enforcement: Contractor must implement a tracking system for violations, such as improper parking or unsafe operation. The system must allow for user notifications, escalating penalties, and resolution tracking. The Contractor will have the ability to implement an automated fine structure for user-based violations of rules and regulations.
b. Safety: In-app messaging must include information on sidewalk riding restrictions, appropriate parking, speed limits, single rider regulations, and geofencing operations for new users.
c. Age Restrictions: App should require age verification to ensure riders meet minimum age requirements.
d. Municipal Codes: The Contractor shall comply with all provisions of the Long Beach Municipal Code, ordinances, and regulations for the City of Long Beach.
6. Data Reporting and Performance Evaluation
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 12
a. Data Standards: Due to the limitations of General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS), the City encourages GBFS to be a part of the proposal and an explanation of the limitations and potential solutions it offers to be included. Regional partners may utilize separate data integration platforms; the selected Contractor will be expected to integrate with the platform of choice utilizing the MDS. b. City Data Access: The City of Long Beach must have access to direct memorability data for custom report building and real time metrics. Customer portals logins provided to City staff may have limitations to protect Personal Identifying Information (PII), but all trip data and MDS feed data must be made available for analyzing and reporting. Vendors must not share user data with federal agencies for immigration enforcement or any activity that could result in racial profiling, deportation, or discrimination, and must implement safeguards to prevent the misuse or misinterpretation of mobility data for such purposes. c. Reporting: Contractors should provide back-end data access to the City and third party compliance vendors, such as Populous, via MDS data. Monthly, quarterly, and annual reports should be provided and include previously agreed upon metrics.
d. Public Dashboards: The Contractor must provide a user -friendly dashboard that the public can use to view real-time system metrics. This might include an online dashboard showing current fleet deployment and ride counts, as well as statistics such as year-to-date ridership.
e. Performance Accountability: The Contractor will be evaluated on its ability to meet key metrics listed in section 2.2.1.
7. Customer Service and Support
a. Customer Support: Seven days per week customer support via text and/or phone call service at minimum offered between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM PT daily with support available in multiple languages.
b. Complaint Response and Tracking: Contractor must define an issue resolution protocol to address complaints or service requests in a timely manner. Requests received from the GoLongBeach app are to be resolved within 2 hours. Requests received directly from the app or customer service portal should be resolved within 24 hours of receipt. Regular summaries of service responsiveness will be required as part of performance monitoring.
c. A mobile application that electronically displays rates, user instructions, day and hours of operation, system restriction (slow zones, no parking, etc.) that is able to be translated into highly used languages in the Long Beach area.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 13
8. Collaboration and Project Management
a. Coordination Meetings: Contractor must participate in routine check-in meetings with City staff, as well as site visits as needed. A dedicated Project Manager must be assigned as the primary liaison to the City.
b. Project Team and Staffing: An overview of the project team must be provided to the City. The Contractor should provide an organizational chart identifying key personnel for specific program functions.
c. Other Agencies: Willingness to coordinate with other mobility vendors or agencies as needed for shared infrastructure, event coordination, and data compliance.
2.1.1 Contract Deliverables
The following deliverables represent the key outputs and responsibilities required of the selected contractor to ensure successful implementation and ongoing performance of the bikeshare program. Each deliverable must be completed within the specified time frames and in coordination with designated City staff. The contractor is responsible for ensuring all work is completed in accordance with the Scope of Work and performance outcome goals outlined in the contract.
Deliverable Description Due Date Responsible Party
1 Final Implementation
Plan
Detailed rollout plan
including fleet deployment,
staffing, and system testing.
Within 30
days of
contract
execution
Contractor/Public
Works
2 Baseline bikeshare
deployment
Initial deployment of 700
pedal-assist e-bikes and plan
for phased deployment
approach of all vehicle types.
May include separately
priced, optional retrofit
concepts to extend life of
existing City bikes.
Within 120
days of
contract
execution
Contractor
3 Final Maintenance
and Operations Plan
Final plan on local operation
and maintenance, including
securing a local facility within
Long Beach for operations
and hiring of local field staff
or local subcontractor.
Within 60
days of
contract
execution
Contractor/Possible
Subcontractor
4 Final Parking and
Infrastructure
Deployment Plan
Details on docking station
expanded locations, signage
and design, plan for
electrified charging hubs,
Within 45
days of
contract
execution
Contractor/Transport
ation & Mobility Staff
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 14
ADA access, and investment
responsibilities.
5 Equity Access Rollout
Summary
Plan for equity programs
and access plan for
unbanked and non -
smartphone users.
Within 60
days of
contract
execution
Contractor
6 Community
Outreach Plan
Schedule at least 4 outreach
events annually.
Within 60
days of
launch;
updated
annually
Contractor
7 Mobile App and
Integration
Demo and launch of
iOS/Android app with
multilingual features,
integration with City Systems
with geofencing and hub
map integrated.
At program
launch, 90
days post -
contract
execution
Contractor/City’s
Technology &
Innovation
Department (TI)
8 MDS Compliance
Real-time Data Feed
Live, secure API feed of fleet
and trip data aligned with
City standards and shared
with third party compliance
vendors as needed.
Live prior to
launch;
continuous
thereafter
Contractor/City’s TI
and Micromobility
Staff
9 Performance Reports Weekly summaries, monthly
KPIs, and quarterly equity
dashboards.
Weekly,
Monthly,
Quarterly
Contractor/Public
Works
10 Public-Facing
Dashboard
Interactive real-time metrics
display for City staff and
public use.
Within 120
days of
program
launch
Contractor/City’s TI
11 Special Event
Operations Plan
Surge operations plan for
2028 Olympics and other
large City events.
180 days
post-
contract or
final 90 days
before event
Contractor/Public
Works and other City
Departments
APPENDICES
Pro-Forma Agreement: Non-Design
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 15
2.2 Performance Metrics & Contract Management
2.2.1 Performance Metrics
The table below highlights the targets that will be tracked and reviewed collaboratively with the Awarded Contractor during the contract. This list is an indication of the performance metrics of interest to the City, and is not exhaustive or final. As a part of a response to this RFP, Proposers may propose additional or alternative performance metrics to be tracked on a regular basis. The final set of performance metrics and frequency of collection will be negotiated by the successful Proposer and the City prior to the finalization of an agreement between parties, and may be adjusted over time as needed.
METRIC DESCRIPTION TARGET DATA SOURCE
1. Fleet Availability Percentage of total
fleet that is
operational
available to users
each day.
80% daily uptime
across all vehicle
types
MDS real-time feed,
monthly
performance
reports
2. Fleet Size Desired Minimum
percentages of each
vehicle type
90% pedal-assist
bikes
10% Pedal Bikes
MDS feed and
vendor reports
3. Utilization Rate Average number of
trips per vehicle per
day; this data helps
determine fleet size
and geographic
distribution are set
at effective rates.
2.0 rides per vehicle
per day (r/v/d).
MDS Feed, third
party compliance
vendors, vendor
reports
4. Service Issues
Response Time
Time required to
respond to issues
affecting the system
(damaged bike,
improperly parked
bike, vandalism).
Resolution of high
priority issues
within 2 hours
(during business
hours). Resolution
of 90% of low-
priority issues
within 24 hours
(during business
hours).
Customer service
logs, weekly
operations
summary
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 16
5. Geographic
Distribution
Equitable
distribution of
vehicles in
predetermined
targeted areas
around the City
% of fleet in target
areas around the
City - minimum
requirement of 20%
of the fleet available
in zones 1 & 2
respectively (see
section 3.1).
MDS deployment
data
6. User Satisfaction User ratings
submitted through
the app on rider
experience, safety,
and support.
Out of 5 star
system, a 4.5
average rating per
month.
In-app user
feedback, monthly
reports
7. Equity Program
Enrollment and
Participation
Enrollment of
eligible low-income
residents in the
City’s affordability
program, unbanked
users, and non-
smart phone users.
10% of all users
enrollment in the
equity program and
15% participation
within the first 12
months.
Enrollment logs,
equity dashboards,
quarterly outreach
reports
8. Community
Outreach
Public Safety and
education events
targeting Equity
Zones and areas
that will have traffic
impacts by Olympic
events.
Minimum of 4
events annually
Annual Community
Engagement
Calendar, event
summary reports
2.2.2 Contract Management
Proposers are expected to design operational strategies, technology platforms, and community engagement efforts that directly support the outcomes described above. The City will evaluate proposals on technical compliance and on their ability to deliver measurable improvements that reflect Long Beach’s long -term vision for a safe and inclusive, bikeshare system. By centering performance outcomes in this procurement, the City aims to establish a resilient and adaptable bikeshare program that serves residents and visitors well into and beyond the 2028 Olympics.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 17
To ensure the successful delivery of the bikeshare program, the City views contract implementation as a collaborative partnership between the Department of Public Works and the Awarded Contractor. Together, both parties will work proactively to achieve the program’s goals and adapt to evolving community needs. This partnership will be rooted in open communication, shared accountability, and data-informed decision-making.
The City and Contractor will hold biweekly implementation meetings for the first 90 days following contract execution to support a smooth system launch. These meetings will include staff from the Mobility Division, Technology & Innovation Department, the Contractor’s project manager, and leads. These early meetings will focus on onboarding, bikeshare fleet rollout updates, parking/hub infrastructure, app and/or web readiness, and data integration.
Following launch, meetings will transition to a monthly performance review format. These sessions will track key metrics including fleet availability and service issues response time, trip volumes, equity program updates, and community feedback, as referenced in the metrics table. The City will provide a standing agenda and may invite additional stakeholders as needed. Any deviations from performance targets such as delays in service resolution or gaps in coverage will be flagged early, and a course correct ion plan will be jointly designed.
Each quarter, the City and Contractor will host a strategic planning session to review system trends, seasonal adjustments, ridership demographics, and feedback from outreach events. These meetings will serve as a checkpoint for innovation, adaptive planning, and for alignment with Elevate ’28 projects. They will also allow the Contractor to propose operational refinements based on real-time learning.
The City will maintain access to the Contractor’s real- time dashboard and reporting platform, ensuring continuous visibility into operational performance and allowing City staff to provide timely input. Contractors will be encouraged to submit brief monthl y performance memos summarizing highlights, challenges, and any support needed from the City.
By fostering a strong working relationship built on transparency and shared responsibility, the City and Contractor will ensure that the bikeshare program evolves with community needs, improves transportation access, and meets ambitious goals for safety, sustainability, and equity.
The following performance reports will be required from the awarded contractor to ensure the City can actively monitor program progress, evaluate equity and safety outcomes, and Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 18
support transparent service delivery. Reports must be submitted regularly and in clearly structured formats, with complete and accurate data aligned to the City’s key performance metrics. The content of each report will be reviewed in partnership with the City’s Department of Public Works and used to guide performance reviews, service adjustments, and future planning.
For the first two (2) months after launch, the Contractor shall submit a Weekly Operations Summary by 10:00 AM every Tuesday. This report should provide a concise overview of the previous week’s operations, including daily fleet availability, response time s for reported service issues, the number of trips and app opens, reasons for any vehicle downtime, and a log of rebalancing activity. It must also include the number of customer service tickets received and resolved, along with time -to-resolution statistics. The City will use this report to confirm operational reliability and responsiveness to issues affecting right- of-way management and public access.
After the initial two (2) months, the Contractor will deliver a Monthly Performance Report by the tenth of each month. This report must provide a comprehensive snapshot of system performance, covering trip volume, average trip duration, and utilization tr ends by vehicle type. It should include geographic data illustrating trip origins and destinations, particularly across Council Districts and any equity zones or targeted outreach zones. Metrics on user retention and app usage must also be included, along with maintenance statistics such as average repair times and recurring equipment issues. Additionally, the report should summarize user feedback and provide an average satisfaction score based on in -app responses. The City will use this report to evaluate user experience, system demand, and service equity across Long Beach neighborhoods.
Fifteen days after the close of each calendar quarter, the Contractor must submit a Quarterly Equity and Accessibility Report. This document must evaluate how well the program is serving low- income communities and historically under -served populations. It should include data on vehicle deployment geography, trip volume in pre -determined outreach areas, and usage of multilingual services and non-digital access tools. The report must also include updates on equity programs, enrollment trends, and any new outr each activities conducted. The City will use this report to measure equity commitments, assess program reach, and ensure that community engagement efforts are effective and inclusive.
Each year, within 30 days of the contract anniversary, the Contractor will provide an Annual Program Summary and Strategic Review. This report must offer a detailed, year -over-year analysis of ridership, safety, and service performance. It should evaluate changes in user behavior, summarize VMT reduction estimates, and present lessons learned. The report Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 19
must include demographic insights, gathered in compliance with privacy laws, and offer recommendations for system improvements, infrastructure investments, or operational adjustments to align with upcoming needs, including Olympic 2028 readiness.
In addition to these narrative reports, the Contractor must maintain a real- time data feed that complies with the City’s technical standards, including MDS specifications. The feed must provide live updates every 30 seconds and include data on device status, trip activity, parking compliance, and battery levels. This real-time data is essential for the City’s internal dashboards and public transparency tools and will be monitored continuously for compliance and performance verification. All reports must be submitted electronically and follow the City’s required formats. Reports must include clear summaries of key findings, explanations of any anomalies, and proposed solutions for underperformance. Through this regular reporting structure, the City and the Co ntractor will collaborate to ensure that the program remains reliable, equitable, and responsive to Long Beach’s evolving mobility needs.
2.2.3 Contract Payment
The City of Long Beach issues payment based upon services rendered. After a contract is finalized and work is performed, the Contractor should invoice the City. The City will remit payment within 30 calendar days of being billed. Payment transfer to the City will also need to be made for the City to collect user fee income.
3 How We Choose
3.1 Minimum Qualifications
To be eligible, Proposers must meet the following minimum requirements:
Legal Authority to Operate
• Authorized and in good standing to conduct business in the State of California and within the City of Long Beach.
• No record of debarment or suspension by Federal, State, or local government. • Hold all necessary licenses, permits, and certifications required for bikeshare operations and compliance with data regulations.
Experience & Operational Capacity
• At least three (3) years of demonstrated experience operating bikeshare programs within municipal or regional contexts.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 20
• Verifiable experience deploying and managing programs, including pedal bikes, and pedal-assist bikes.
• Must have fleet that includes pedal-assist bikes. All vehicles must have the ability to have their speed and operating area be controlled remotely and follow all State and local speed laws.
• Proven track record managing fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles in urban environments comparable to Long Beach.
• Capacity to deploy the minimum fleet of 700 pedal assist within 6 months of contract execution, with capacity to scale up as required by the City in preparation for major events such as the 2028 Olympics. Fleet deployment can be completed in phases. • Must have a plan or existing facility for local operations (maintenance, charging, storage) based within the City of Long Beach.
• Must be able to provide number of W -2 employees or use a qualified local subcontractor for field operations.
• Capability to provide seven -day-a-week customer support from at least 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, in multiple languages.
Data Management & Technology Requirements
• Must have operational backend systems capable of providing real- time MDS feeds and supporting compliance with City reporting requirements. • Must demonstrate ability to share trip data, parking compliance, and fleet status metrics securely with the City and approved third-party vendors (e.g., Populus). • Must have a secure and multilingual mobile application available on iOS and Android that supports geofencing, real-time trip planning, and customer support. • All vehicles must be equipped with GPS, wireless connectivity, tamper resistance hardware, and the ability to respond to digital parking/riding restrictions.
Equity and Accessibility
• Must be able to offer multilingual support.
• Capability to provide non-digital payment options (e.g., prepaid card, in-person cash payment options, etc.).
• Must have the ability to provide non-digital access to vehicles for those without smart phones (e.g., tap cards).
• Must be able to distribute fleet across Long Beach for equitable access to all with a minimum requirement of 20% of the fleet available in zones 1 & 2 respectively, as shown below.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 21
o
3.2 Evaluation Criteria
Proposals shall be consistently evaluated based upon the following criteria. The City may evaluate proposals in whole or in part. While the City’s preference is for integrated proposals covering hardware, software, and maintenance together, the City reserv es the right to evaluate and award proposals for hardware, software, and maintenance separately if it determines that separate awards are in the City’s best interests.
CRITERIA Weight
1. Organizational Capacity & Experience
• Demonstrates successful history operating bikeshare programs with mixed vehicle fleets.
• Shows experience managing a comparable system in an environment similar to Long Beach, with fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles. • Demonstrates capacity to manage a local operations team, either with W-2 employees or qualified subcontractors.
25%
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 22
• Provides references and case studies showcasing successful adaptive fleet deployments, equitable service implementation, and responsiveness to municipal partners.
• Organizational chart, including roles, responsibilities, and experience of designated project manager and key staff including any subcontractors.
• Experience installing or partnering with installers for electrified parking hubs and expanding parking infrastructure to help meet demand.
2. Method of Approach
• Fleet size and vehicle specifications for initial deployment and plan for any phased increases there after.
• Outlines operational strategies and demonstrates the feasibility of fleet mix, scalable deployment.
• Provides parking drop zone design for multiple vehicle types and parking management options.
• Equity program plan for equitable pricing and equitable distribution for deployment.
• Community outreach plan for promoting equity programs and promoting program growth through multilingual outreach
• Demonstrates alignment with key City planning documents and initiatives, such as Elevate ‘28, the Climate Action Plan, and Vision Zero, particularly highlighting strategies for major event surge deployments. • Maintenance schedule and rebalancing plan for local operations. • Curb maintenance plan and solutions for keeping the Public Right of Way clear.
• Special Event plan for increased parking and fleet size. • Pricing model outlining what costs will be to users; include current pricing for similar geographic areas.
40%
3. Communications & Reporting
• Plan for real-time data sharing using MDS and integration with the City’s existing digital infrastructure.
• Provides pictures of app flow and internal app messaging to customers concerning usage, geofencing, and safety features.
• Provides pictures of backend reporting site for City Staff and describes what features for data analytics will be included.
• Provides sample reporting for monthly and quarterly reporting, including ridership analytics, maintenance logs, and compliance metrics.
20%
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 23
• Provides plan for public dashboard tools and transparency features. • Plan describes approach to customer service complaint tracking, internal response times, and collaboration on course corrections.
4. Reasonableness of Cost
• Provides detailed cost and pricing structure based on The City purchasing and owning the vehicles with pricing models structured to allow phased roll out of vehicle types or infrastructure improvements.
This includes the City purchasing the vehicles, subsidizing operations and equity programs, and will require the City to retain all program revenue paid by users.
• Demonstrates cost structure in relation to the scope of services, fleet size, service quality, alignment with performance and equity goals. • Provides cost breakdown and ensure it supports the full range of services, from fleet maintenance and staffing to technology and customer service.
• Cost breakdown reflects scaleable fleet, surge needs during major events, including the 2028 Olympics.
• Pricing models for equity programs including low-income riders, seniors, and unbanked users.
15%
3.3 Local Preference
• The City shall apply five extra credit percentage points to all local businesses operating a home-based, residential business.
• The City shall apply ten extra credit percentage points to all local businesses operating a non-residential, commercial, brick-and-mortar business. • Local business shall mean a business which maintains its principal place of business in a fixed office/place of business with the City of Long Beach, possesses a current City of Long Beach business license and sellers permit if applicable. • For a business to be eligible to claim preference, the business MUST request the preference in the solicitation response (see Attachment C) and provide a copy of its current business license and seller’s permit if applicable. • The local preference does not apply to solicitations that are funded in full or in part by tidelands funds. The local preference may not apply to solicitations that are funded in full or in part by certain grant, federal or State of California funds.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 24
4 Proposal Instructions & Content
4.1 Timelines & Instructions
MILESTONE
TIME
(PACIFIC)
& DATE LOCATION / ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Release date December
16, 2025
Optional Virtual Info
Session
1:00 PM
(PST),
January 6,
2026
Microsoft Teams Need help?
Join the meeting now
Meeting ID:256 620 055 264 50
Passcode:oY7uY3BS
Dial in by phone
+1 213-279-1690,,142870964# United States, Los Angeles
Find a local number
Phone conference ID:142 870 964#
• RSVP Instructions, Proposers should RSVP 48
hours in advanced.
• Virtual session will:
o Provide equal access to key information,
clarification, and expectations.
o Allow for unofficial general questions
and answers. Answers will be issued to
all prospective Contractors via an
addendum only to written questions
received by the deadline for questions.
Questions due to the
City
11:00 AM
(PST),
January
13, 2026
• Submit all inquiries via email to
[email protected]
Posting of the Q&A January
27, 2026
• Responses to the questions will be posted on
LongBeachBuys.com.
Proposals due 11:00 AM
(PST),
• Proposals should be submitted electronically
via LongBeachBuys.com.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 25
February
10, 2026
• Late proposals, or proposals submitted
through other channels will not be accepted.
• Proposers are responsible for submitting their
proposals completely and on time.
o Proposers will receive an e-bid
confirmation number with a time stamp
from LongBeachBuys.com indicating that
the proposal was submitted successfully.
The City will only receive proposals that
were transmitted successfully.
o For technical support, email or call the
City during normal business hours at
[email protected] or (562)
570-6200.
Evaluation of Narrative
& Cost Proposals
February -
March
2026
• An Evaluation Committee will review Narrative
& Cost Proposals to select the proposal that
best meets the needs of the City.
• Evaluations will be conducted using a
methodology derived from the evaluation
criteria listed in Section 3.2.
Vehicle and Technology
Demonstration for Top
3 Candidates
TBD • The top three (3) candidates may be asked to
bring examples of the vehicles listed in their
proposals and provide demonstrations of the
vehicles working with the app technology and
geofencing technology. This demonstration will
allow City staff to test drive the vehicles and
ask questions about their specifications.
Negotiation &
Contractor Selection
TBD • Selected Contractor(s) will be notified in
writing.
• Any award is contingent upon the successful
negotiation of final contract terms. If contract
negotiations cannot be concluded successfully,
the City reserves the right to negotiate a
contract with another Contractor or withdraw
the RFP.
• Negotiations shall be confidential and not
subject to disclosure to competing Contractors
unless and until an agreement is reached.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 26
Estimated Contract
Execution
TBD
Proposer Debrief After
Contractor
is Selected
• Successful and unsuccessful Proposers are
encouraged to request phone call or in person
meeting with the City to discuss the strengths
and weaknesses of their proposal. The intent of
the debrief is to provide the Proposer with
constructive feedback to equip them with
information to effectively meet the City’s needs
and be successful in future proposals.
4.2 Proposal Content
Complete proposals will include the following. Proposers are encouraged to use this table as a checklist to ensure all components are included in their proposal. Please note proposals that are NOT complete will NOT be considered for the opportunity and will be deemed non-responsive.
PROPOSAL
☐ Narrative
Proposal
The Narrative Proposal should provide a straightforward, concise delineation of capabilities to satisfy the RFP. Guidance on preparing a Narrative Proposal is detailed in Section 4.3. ☐ Cost Proposal Proposers should follow the guidance below to present cost proposals. This should include:
• Itemization
o Per unit costs: It may include cost per vehicle, per
trip, per user, per equity program participant.
o Service outputs: It may include number of vehicles
deployed, daily fleet maintenance cycles, number
of customer service representatives available.
o Staffing: Specify hourly or salaried wages for key
roles, including management, maintenance,
customer service, and data/reporting teams.
Include fringe benefits and overhead allocations
where applicable.
o Technology: Break down of software licensing, app
maintenance, data storage, and integration costs.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 27
o Infrastructure: Provide costs related to docks,
parking stations, geofencing, adaptive vehicle
infrastructure, etc.
• Time period costs broken down:
o Monthly and Annually for the first 3 years.
o Including escalation assumptions (such as inflation,
CPI) if applicable.
o For long-term financial planning, Proposers should
model potential changes across a X-year projection,
highlighting how costs and revenues will adjust
during scaling, Olympic surge, and maintenance
phases.
• Equity Pricing
o Pricing models for equity program participants
such as low-income riders, seniors, and unbanked
users
o Explain subsidy structure and anticipated
participation rates.
o Address administrative costs of program
enrollment and verification.
• Olympics Surge Planning
o Detail surge-related costs tied to increased fleet
availability and staffing.
o Customer support and operations adjustments for
the 2028 Olympics.
• Format
o Excel Workbook: Submit a complete cost proposal
spreadsheet in Excel.
o Narrative Summary: Include a narrative (max X
pages) explaining cost assumptions, pricing
rationale, scalability, revenue projections, and
economic development impacts.
PROPOSAL APPENDICES
☐ Financial
Stability
Proposers should include one or more of the following financial statements to provide the City with enough information to determine financial stability of the Proposer and subcontractor. • Financial Statement or Annual Report
• Business tax return
• Statement of income and balance sheet
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 28
☐ Other Addenda
(if applicable)
Colored displays, promotional materials, and other collateral are not necessary or desired. However, if a complete response cannot be provided without referencing supporting
documentation, it may be provided as an addendum clearly cited in the Narrative or Cost Proposal.
MANDATORY ATTACHMENTS | The following are included as Attachments in Long Beach Buys. They must be signed by the individual legally authorized to bind the Proposer.
☐ A. Authorization & Certification
☐ B. Equal Benefits Ordinance (EBO) Form
☐ C. Local Preference Program
☐ D. Vendor Information Security Assessment (VISA) (if applicable): If Proposer is providing a cloud based software solution, the Proposer must complete the VISA form.
☐ E. Privacy Policy Attachment(If applicable): If Proposer is providing a technology, information system, application, data collection mechanism, or rulemaking that handles or collects Personally Identifiable Information (PII), the Proposer must complete the Privacy Policy Attachment.
☐
F. PCI Attestation of Compliance (AOC) and Responsibility Matrix (RM), (If applicable): If Proposer is providing Payment Card (Credit Card) related services or solution, the Proposer must provide an unexpired, current version PCI AOC and RM in accordance with PCI Tier level.
Attachments Which May be Submitted Upon Award | Upon award, Awarded Contractors will be required to submit the following. We encourage you to take note of these requirements, and where possible, include available information as part of your proposal to expedite processing.
☐ G. W-9
☐ H. Business License
☐ I. Proof of Registration with the California Secretary of State ☐ J. Certificates of Insurance: See Section 5.3 Contract Terms & Conditions ☐ K. Information and Cybersecurity Program attestation
☐ L. Breach and Cyber Incident reporting requirement
☐ Contact Information | Ensure your organization’s profile is up to date in Long Beach Buys, including an email address, phone number, and for any classifications you may qualify for.
☐ Conformation of Attachments | Ensure you have checked ALL the attachments in Long Beach Buys and have confirmed that all the required documents have been uploaded and labeled correctly.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 29
4.3 Narrative Proposal Template
Proposers complete this template and submit as a narrative proposal.
An editable version of the template below has been posted to Long Beach Buys. Proposers should complete the editable template and submit it as their narrative proposal.
Organizational Capacity & Experience
PROPOSER CONTACT INFORMATION
Organization
Company Name
Company Address
Federal Tax ID Number
Website
Authorized
Representative
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone Number
Other Point of
Contact (if
required)
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone Number
PROPOSER CAPACITY & EXPERIENCE
What type of enterprise is the organization?
☐ Non-Profit
☐ Sole Proprietorship
☐ General Partnership
☐ Corporation
State and Date of incorporation:
_______________________________________
☐ Limited Liability Company
☐ Other _________________________________
Please describe why the organization is
qualified to provide the services described in
this RFP (1-2 paragraphs).
Please describe the length of time the
organization has been operating bikeshare
programs, including the types of services
offered and the municipalities served.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 30
Highlight any experience operating under a
turnkey or co- managed model in urban
environments similar to Long Beach.
Explain the experience working with cities on
the integration or expansion of bikeshare
services. Describe how the organization
partnered with municipal agencies or local
operators to meet objectives related to
system electrification, equitable fleet
distribution, and transit connectivity.
How many employees does the organization
have in total and how many residing in Long
Beach?
Where are the representative(s) that would
service the City’s account located?
Describe the proposed staffing plan for this
project. Include the names, titles, and roles
of key personnel, the percentage of time
each will be allocated to the Long Beach
Bikeshare Program, and a brief paragraph or
resume outlining their relevant experie nce.
Responses should demonstrate the
organization’s capacity to launch, manage,
and sustain operations in accordance with
the scope outlined in Section 2.
REFERENCES
Reference 1
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates
Reference 2
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 31
Reference 3
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates
Reference 4
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates
Reference 5
Company
Project Manager
Phone Number
Project Description
Project Start and
End Dates
SUB-CONTRACTOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Does the proposal include subcontractors? ☐ Yes
☐ No
If applicable, provide the following for all subcontractors included in this proposal.
Organization Company Name
Company Address
Authorized
Representative
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone Number
Other Point of
Contact (if
required)
Name
Title
Email Address
Phone Number
SUBCONTRACTOR CAPACITY & EXPERIENCE
What type of enterprise is the organization? ☐ Non-Profit Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 32
☐ Sole Proprietorship
☐ General Partnership
☐ Corporation
State and Date of incorporation:
_______________________________________
☐ Limited Liability Company
☐ Other _________________________________
Which specific requirements of this RFP will
the subcontractor perform?
Is the subcontractor registered with the
California Department of Industrial
Relations? If yes, provide registration
number.
Please describe why the organization is
qualified to provide the services described in
this RFP (1-2 paragraphs).
Please describe the length of time the
organization has been providing the services
described in this RFP (1-3 sentences).
How many employees does the organization
have nationally, locally, and residing in Long
Beach?
Where are the representative(s) that would
service the City’s account located?
Describe the proposed staffing plan for this
project. Include the names, titles, and roles
of key personnel, the percentage of time
each will be allocated to the Long Beach
bikeshare program, and a brief paragraph or
resume outlining their relevant experie nce.
Responses should demonstrate the
organization’s capacity to launch, manage,
and sustain operations in accordance with
the scope outlined in Section 2.
Method of Approach
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 33
1. Proposers briefly summarize proposed solution for a bikeshare program in Long Beach
2. Proposers explain how the organization will achieve the target outcomes/outputs of the RFP.
3. A. Describe proposed operational strategy, include how the organization will measure performance and ensure feasibility. Identify key performance metrics and how these will be tracked and reported to the City.
B. Provide a detailed rollout plan that includes initial and phased deployment schedule(s). Specify the proposed fleet size and vehicle types and explain how this mix supports ridership demand, customer connectivity, equitable access, and pricing.
C. Explain approach to curb management and solutions for keeping the Public Right of Way clear. Include how geofencing, preferred parking zones, and physical or digital enforcement will be used to reduce sidewalk clutter and ensure compliance with City -designated parking areas. Describe the community outreach plan for promoting equity programs and promoting program growth through multilingual outreach.
D. Outline the lifecycle maintenance and vehicle inspection plan. Describe how the organization will ensure safety, service continuity, and reliability across the fleet, including protocols for daily maintenance, vandalism response, and asset retirement.
E. Describe how the organization will prepare for high -volume usage during major events such as the 2028 Olympics, local festivals, or emergencies. Include any experience with event -based surge planning, staff reallocation, and temporary fleet expansion.
F. Provide a financial model where the City financially owns the program with pricing models structured to allow phased roll out of vehicle types or infrastructure improvements. This will include the City purchasing vehicles and paying for operations, and equ ity programs and will require the City to retain all program revenue paid by users. Provide details on what a multi year investment plan could look like for purchasing vehicles and investing in expanded parking infrastructure.
A. What are the key operational, technical, or regulatory risks anticipated in implementing a mobility program in Long Beach? For each, describe the mitigation strategy and how the organization has successfully managed similar risks in other cities.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 34
B. Explain how incidents involving user safety, property damage, or third-party claims will be managed. Describe insurance coverage, claims handling process, and any legal or technical protocols in place to minimize liability and ensure swift resolution.
C. What strategies will be implemented to prevent and respond to vehicle vandalism, theft, and misuse? Include the approach to real -time tracking, retrieval, and enforcement in coordination with the City, and share data or results from previous deployments.
D. Describe how the organization will ensure uninterrupted service availability, including mobile app functionality and back -end platform reliability. What contingency plans are in place to prevent or recover from service outages or cybersecurity incidents?
E. How will the program maintain ongoing compliance with applicable legal, accessibility, and data privacy requirements? Describe internal processes, legal review protocols, or partnerships that support compliance and help mitigate regulatory risk.
4. Describe what support, resources, or coordination you will need from the City to ensure successful implementation and ongoing operation of the bikeshare program. Include any anticipated needs related to permitting, infrastructure access, public outreach, data integration, or interdepartmental coordination.
Communications & Reporting
1. Describe the data, customer usage, and reporting systems that will be used to evaluate program performance. Identify the key performance indicators (KPIs) that will be tracked, and explain how this data will be delivered to the City and used to inform operations. If additional or alternative metrics beyond those listed in the RFP are recommended, describe their value. Include examples of how the organization has used data systems and reporting in past programs to support course corrections, transparency, or third-party collaboration.
2. Describe the approach to supervising employees responsible for front-line service delivery, including those handling vehicle deployment, rebalancing, maintenance, and customer service. Explain the supervisory structure, methods for ensuring accountability and performance, and how issues are identified, escalated, and resolved. Include any tools, tracking systems, or staff performance metrics that will be used to maintain service quality and compliance with contract requirements.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 35
3. Explain how the organization will communicate and coordinate with the City to ensure alignment with program objectives. Describe the structure and frequency of performance reporting, including delivery of MDS data, monthly and quarterly reports, and access to real-time dashboards. Additionally, outline the approach to regular check -ins, collaborative problem -solving, and responsiveness to City inquiries or requests for course correction. Include any tools or systems that will be used to facilitate transparent and efficient communication.
4. If the proposal involves partnerships with subcontractors, data platform vendors, or other third -party stakeholders, describe how the organization will coordinate with these groups to support successful implementation. Include approach to communication, da ta sharing, role delineation, and issue resolution to ensure consistent service delivery and alignment with the City’s goals. If applicable, provide examples of prior experience managing multi-stakeholder collaborations.
5. The City requires that the Awarded Contractor provide proof of payment of any subcontractors used for this project. If the proposal includes subcontractors, please describe the plan for how the City will be notified of such payments.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 36
5 Terms & Conditions
5.1 Acronyms/Definitions
1. Awarded Contractor: The organization/individual that is awarded a contract with the City of Long Beach, California for the services identified in this RFP.
2. City: The City of Long Beach and any department or agency identified herein.
3. Contractor / Proposer: Organization/individual submitting a proposal in response to this RFP.
4. CVC: California Vehicle Code
5. Department / Division: City of Long Beach, Department of Public Works
6. Electric Bicycle (e-bike): A bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts and that ceases to provide pedal assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Defined by CVC 312.5(a)(1) as an “electric bicycle.”
7. Evaluation Committee: An independent committee comprised solely of representatives of the City established to review proposals submitted in response to the RFP, evaluate the proposals, and select a Contractor.
8. Geofence: Ability of Operators to limit vehicle function within a prescribed geographic area
9. LBMC: Long Beach Municipal Code
10. May: Indicates something that is not mandatory but permissible.
11. MDS: Mobility Data Specification; required data of Operators to provide to the City and/or third-party data platform provider(s)
12. Pedal Assist E-Bike: Class 1 e-bike that does not have a throttle only option
13. Public Right-of-Way (PROW): Any easement or land owned by the City and used or designated for use as a street, parkway, alley, utility corridor, walkway, promenade, or bike path, and the surfaces thereof
14. Rebalancing: The daily redistribution and organization of vehicles by Operators throughout the day into approved parking zones
15. RFP: Request for Proposals.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 37
16. Shall / Must: Indicates a mandatory requirement. Failure to meet a mandatory requirement will result in the rejection of a proposal as non-responsive.
17. Should: Indicates something that is recommended but not mandatory. If the Proposer fails to provide recommended information, the City may, at its sole option, ask the Proposer to provide the information or evaluate the proposal without the information.
18. Subcontractor: Third party not directly employed by the Proposer who will provide services identified in this RFP.
19. Users: Any person 18 years or older who subscribes to a shared micromobility platform or pays a fee to ride a shared bicycle or e-bike
5.2 Solicitation Terms & Conditions
1. The City reserves the right to alter, amend, or modify any provisions of this RFP, or to withdraw this RFP, at any time prior to the award of a contract pursuant hereto, if it is in the best interest of the City to do so.
2. The City reserves the right to request clarification of any proposal term from Proposers.
3. The City may contact the references provided; contact any Proposer to clarify any response; contact any current users of a Proposer’s services; solicit information from any available source concerning any aspect of a proposal; and seek and review any other information deemed pertinent to the evaluation process.
4. The level and term of documentation required from the Proposer to satisfy the City will be commensurate with the size and complexity of the contract and Proposers should submit accordingly. If the information submitted by the Proposer, or available from other sources, is insufficient to satisfy the City as to the Proposer’s contractual responsibility, the City may request additional information from the Proposer or may deem the proposal non-responsive.
5. The City reserves the right to waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.
6. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received prior to contract award.
7. The City’s determination of the Proposer’s responsibility, for the purposes of this RFP, shall be final.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 38
8. Unless otherwise specified, the City prefers to award to a single Contractor but reserves the right to award contracts to multiple contractors.
9. The City shall not be obligated to accept the lowest priced proposal, but will make an award in the best interests of the City of Long Beach after all factors have been evaluated.
10. If the City receives a single responsive, responsible proposal, the City may request an extension of the proposal acceptance period and/or conduct a price or cost analysis on such proposal. The Proposer shall promptly provide all cost or pricing data, documentation and explanation requested by the City to assist such analysis. By conducting such analysis, the City shall not be obligated to accept the single proposal.
The City reserves the right to reject such proposal or any portion thereof.
11. Any irregularities or lack of clarity in the RFP should be brought to the Purchasing Division designee’s attention as soon as possible so that corrective addenda may be furnished to Proposers.
12. Proposals must include any and all proposed terms and conditions, including, without limitation, written warranties, maintenance/service agreements, license agreements, lease purchase agreements and the Proposer’s standard contract language. The omission of these documents may render a proposal non-responsive.
13. Alterations, modifications or variations to a proposal may not be considered unless authorized by the RFP or by addendum or amendment.
14. Proposals which appear unrealistic in the terms of technical commitments, lack of technical competence, or are indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of this contract, may be rejected.
15. Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice received prior to the proposal opening time.
16. The price and amount of this proposal must have been arrived at independently and without consultation, communication, agreement or disclosure with or to any other Contractor or prospective Contractor.
17. No attempt may be made at any time to induce any firm or person to refrain from submitting a proposal or to submit any intentionally high or noncompetitive proposal.
All proposals must be made in good faith and without collusion.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 39
18. Prices offered by Proposers in their proposals are an irrevocable offer for the term of the contract and any contract extensions. The Awarded Contractor agrees to provide the purchased services at the costs, rates and fees as set forth in their proposal in response to this RFP. No other costs, rates or fees shall be payable to the Awarded Contractor for implementation of their proposal.
19. The City is not liable for any costs incurred by Proposers prior to entering into a formal contract. Costs of developing the proposals or any other such expenses incurred by the Proposer in responding to the RFP, are entirely the responsibility of the Proposer, and shall not be reimbursed in any manner by the City.
20. In the event a Proposer received assistance from City staff or a representative of the City (technical assistance provider), the City is not responsible for any mistakes, inaccuracies, delays, or any other impact that the assistance provided did to impact the Proposer’s final product. Available technical assistance support services are only intended to provide advice and does not constitute a basis for any protest to this contract opportunity. It is solely the Proposer’s responsibility to prepare and submit a response to the RFP.
21. Proposal will become public record after the Notice of Intent to Award has been posted and the protest period has closed unless the proposal or specific parts of the proposal can be shown to be exempt by law. Each Proposer may clearly label all or part of a proposal as "CONFIDENTIAL" provided that the Proposer thereby agrees to indemnify and defend the City for honoring such a designation. The failure to so label any information that is released by the City shall constitute a complete waiver of any and all claims for damages caused by any release of the information.
22. A proposal submitted in response to this RFP must identify any subcontractors, and outline the contractual relationship between the Proposer and each subcontractor.
An official of each proposed subcontractor must sign, and include as part of the proposal submitted in response to this RFP, a statement to the effect that the subcontractor has read and will agree to abide by the Proposer’s obligations.
23. If the Contractor elects to use subcontractors, the City requires that the Awarded Contractor provide proof of payment of any subcontractors used for this project.
Proposals shall include a plan by which the City will be notified of such payments.
24. Each Proposer must adhere to the City’s Vendor Code of Conduct, including, but not limited to, disclose any existing or potential conflict of interest relative to the Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 40
performance of the contractual services resulting from this RFP. Any such relationship that might be perceived or represented as a conflict should be disclosed.
The City reserves the right to disqualify any Proposer on the grounds of actual or apparent c onflict of interest. The Vendor Code of Conduct can be found at https://longbeach.gov/globalassets/finance/media-library/documents/business- info/purchasing-division/final-vendor-code-of-conduct-2023
25. Each Proposer must include in its proposal a complete disclosure of any alleged significant prior or ongoing contract failures, any civil or criminal litigation or investigation pending which involves the Proposer or in which the Proposer has been judged guilty or liable. Failure to comply with the terms of this provision will disqualify any proposal. The City reserves the right to reject any proposal based upon the Proposer’s prior history with the City or with any other party, which documents, without limitation, unsatisfactory performance, adversarial or contentious demeanor, significant failure(s) to meet contract milestones or other contractual failures.
26. The City reserves the right to negotiate final contract terms with any Proposers selected. The contract between the parties will consist of the RFP together with any modifications thereto, and the Awarded Contractor’s proposal, together with any modifications and clarifications thereto that are submitted at the request of the City during the evaluation and negotiation process. In the event of any conflict or contradiction between or among these documents, the documents shall control in the following order of precedence: the final executed contract, the RFP, any modifications and clarifications to the Awarded Contractor’s proposal, and the Awarded Contractor’s proposal. Specific exceptions to this general rule may be noted in the final executed contract.
27. The City will not be responsible for or bound by any oral communication or any other information or contact that occurs outside the official communication process specified herein, unless confirmed in writing by the City Contact.
28. Any contract resulting from this RFP shall not be effective unless and until approved by the City Council / City Manager, as applicable.
29. The City will not be liable for Federal, State, or Local excise taxes.
30. Execution of Attachment A of this RFP shall constitute an agreement to all terms and conditions specified in the RFP, including all contract terms and conditions therein, except such terms and conditions that the Proposer expressly excludes.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 41
31. Proposer understands and acknowledges that the representations above are material and important, and will be relied on by the City in evaluation of the proposal. Any Proposer misrepresentation shall be treated as fraudulent concealment from the City of the true facts relating to the proposal.
32. Proposals shall be kept confidential until the Notice of Intent to Award has been posted and the protest period has closed.
33. No announcement concerning the award of a contract as a result of this RFP may be made without the prior written approval of the City.
Proposers are advised that any contract awarded pursuant to this procurement process that exceeds $100,000 shall be subject to the applicable provisions of Long Beach Municipal Code Section 2.73 et seq, the Equal Benefits Ordinance.
34. All Proposers shall complete and return, with their bid, the Equal Benefits Ordinance Compliance form contained in Attachment B, if applicable. Unless otherwise specified in the procurement package, Proposers do not need to submit with their bid supporting documentation proving compliance. However, supporting documentation verifying that the benefits are provided equally shall be required if the proposer is selected for award of a contract.
35. Independent contractors or employees of a third- party employer who are CalPERS retirees are subject to provisions of the Government Code. A CalPERS retiree is an employee of a CalPERS employer who terminates active employment and receives a monthly CalPERS retirement allowance. Any individual qualifying as a CalPERS retiree doing business as an independent contractor or employee of a third- party employer is required to submit a CalPERS determination to ensure the services provided are considered that of a true independent contractor position. All third-party employers are required to notify any individual they are having work for the City of Long Beach of this requirement. You may reach out directly to CalPERS at [email protected] for a determination.
5.3 Contract Terms & Conditions
1. The Awarded Contractor will be the sole point of contract responsibility. The City will look solely to the Awarded Contractor for the performance of all contractual obligations which may result from an award based on this RFP, and the Awarded Contractor s hall not be relieved for the non -performance of any or all subcontractors.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 42
2. The Awarded Contractor must maintain, for the duration of its contract, insurance coverages as required by the City. Work on the contract shall not begin until after the Awarded Contractor has submitted acceptable evidence of the required insurance coverages. As a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this contract, Contractor shall procure and maintain at Contractor’s expense for the duration of this contract from an insurance company that is admitted to write insurance in the State of California or tha t has a rating of or equivalent to an A:VIII by A.M. Best and Company the following insurance:
a. Commercial general liability insurance equivalent in scope to ISO form CG 00 01 11 85 or broader and that does not exclude coverage for liability resulting from the use or operation by Contractor or its customers, employees, or invitees of e - bikes as defined by the California Vehicle Code Sections 312.5, 21207.5, and 24016 (and others as may apply), for liability resulting from XCU (explosion, underground, and collapse) perils, cross liability protection, mobile equipment, and products and completed operati ons liability naming the City of Long Beach, its Commissions and Boards, and their officials, employees, and agents as additional insureds on a form equivalent in coverage scope to ISO CG 20 26 11 85 from and against claims, demands, causes of action, expe nses, costs, or liability for injury to or death of persons, or damage to or loss of property arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor an amount not less than One Million Dollars (US $1,000,000) per occurrence and Two Million D ollars (US $2,000,000) in general aggregate.
b. If applicable, commercial automobile liability insurance equivalent in coverage scope to ISO CA 00 01 06 92 in an amount not less than One Million Dollars (US $1,000,000) combined single limit (CSL) covering Symbol 1 (“Any Auto”). c. Cyber and privacy insurance that does not exclude coverage for liability resulting from the Contractor’s or its subcontractors’, employees’, or agents’ failure to protect private or confidential information of its customers or others from unauthorized access on or through the internet, making known to any person or organization material that violates a person or organization’s right to privacy or publicity right, and failure to prevent the transmission of a computer virus to its authorized users of its web site or any private communication networks such as customers, suppliers or supporters, on or through the internet in an amount not less than One Million Dollars (US $1,000,000) per occurrence and One Million Dollars (US $1,000,000) in general aggregate
d. Umbrella liability insurance on a following form basis insurance with respect to a. and c., including, but not limited to, additional insured coverage, if provided, in Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 43
an amount not less than Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) per claim covering the indemnification provided pursuant to this Contract.
e. Special perils personal property insurance covering all of the e -bikes and other equipment belonging to, leased by, or under the care, custody, or control of Contractor at full replacement value new. Contractor and Contractor’s insurer shall waive rights to sue City for any property damage or loss covered by property insurance.
Any self-insurance program or self-insurance retention must be approved separately in writing by City and shall protect the City of Long Beach and its officials, employees, and agents in the same manner and to the same extent as they would have been protected had the policy or policies not contained retention provisions. Each insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, or canceled by either party except after thirty (30) days prior written notice to City, and sh all be primary and not contributing to any other insurance or self - insurance maintained by City.
Any subcontractors which Contractor may use in the performance of this contract shall be required to indemnify the City to the same extent as the Contractor and to maintain insurance in compliance with the provisions of this section.
Contractor shall deliver to City certificates of insurance and original endorsements for approval as to sufficiency and form prior to the start of performance hereunder.
The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall contain the original signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. “Claims-made” policies are not acceptable unless City Risk Manager determines that “Occurrence” policies are not available in the market for the risk being insured. If a “Claims-made” policy is accepted, it must provide for an extended reporting period of not less than three (3) years. Such insurance as required herein shall not be deemed to limit Contractor’s liability relating to performance under this contract. City reserves the right to require complete certified copies of all said policies at any time.
Any modification or waiver of the insurance requirements herein shall be made only with the approval of City Risk Manager. The procuring of insurance shall not be construed as a limitation on liability or as full performance of the indemnification provisions of this contract.
3. The Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) requires all businesses operating in the City of Long Beach to pay a business license tax. In some cases, the City may require a regulatory permit and/or evidence of a State or Federal license. Prior to issuing a Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 44
business license, certain business types will require the business license application and/or business location to be reviewed by the Development Services, Fire, Health, and/or Police Departments. Additional information is available at www.longbeach.gov/finance/business_license.
4. All work performed in connection with construction shall be performed in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state, county or municipal governments or agencies (including, without limitation, all applicable federal and state labor standards, including the prevailing wage provisions of Sections 1770 et seq. of the California Labor Code), and (b) all directions, rules and regulations of any fire marshal, health officer, building inspector, or other officer of every governmental agency now having or hereafter acquiring jurisdiction.
5. Awarded Contractor shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless City, its Boards, Commissions, and their officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”), from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damage, loss, obligations, causes of ac tion, proceedings, awards, fines, judgments, penalties, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, court costs, expert and witness fees, and other costs and fees of litigation, arising or alleged to have arisen, in whole or in part, out of or in connection with (1) Awarded Contractor’s breach or failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Contract, including any obligations arising from the Awarded Contractor’s compliance with or failure to comply with applicable laws, including all applicable federal and state labor requirements including, without limitation, the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1770 et seq. or (2) negligent or willful acts, errors, omissions or misrepresentations committed by Awarded Contractor, its of ficers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or anyone under Awarded Contractor’s control, in the performance of work or services under this Contract (collectively “Claims” or individually “Claim”).
6. In addition to Awarded Contractor’s duty to indemnify, Awarded Contractor shall have a separate and wholly independent duty to defend Indemnified Parties at Awarded Contractor’s expense by legal counsel approved by City, from and against all Claims, and shall continue this defense until the Claims are resolved, whether by settlement, judgment or otherwise. No finding or judgment of negligence, fault, breach, or the like on the part of Awarded Contractor shall be required for the duty to defend to arise. C ity shall notify Awarded Contractor of any Claim, shall tender the defense of the Claim to Awarded Contractor, and shall assist Awarded Contractor, as may be reasonably requested, in the defense.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 45
7. If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a Claim was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnified Parties, Awarded Contractor’s costs of defense and indemnity shall be (1) reimbursed in full if the court determines sole negligence by the Indemnified Parties, or (2) reduced by the percentage of willful misconduct attributed by the court to the Indemnified Parties.
8. Any requests for reasonable price adjustments must be submitted 60 days prior to the Contract annual anniversary date. Requests for adjustment in cost of labor and/or materials must be justified based upon verifiable criteria such as the Consumer Price Index, US City Averages, or other relevant indices.
9. If the Awarded Contractor elects to use subcontractors, Awarded Contractor agrees to require its subcontractors to indemnify Indemnified Parties and to provide insurance coverage to the same extent as Awarded Contractor.
10. If the Awarded Contractor elects to use subcontractors, the Awarded Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work until all insurance required of subcontractor is obtained.
11. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Contract.
12. PUBLIC WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT ONLY: Contractor agrees that all public work (as defined in California Labor Code Section 1720) performed pursuant to this Agreement (the “Public Work”), if any, shall comply with the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. If there is a diff erence between the general prevailing wage rates determined by the director of the Department of Industrial Relations and the applicable minimum wage rates determined by the Secretary of Labor (for federally assisted projects) for similar classifications o f work, the Contractor and its subcontractors of every tier shall pay their workers not less than the higher wage rate.
13. In all bid specifications, contracts and subcontracts for any such Public Work, Contractor shall obtain the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general prevailing rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to perform the Public Work, and shall include such rates in the bid specifications, contract or subcontract. Such bid specifications, contract or subcontract must contain the following provision: “It shall be mandatory for the contractor to pay not less than the said prevailing rate of wages to all workers employed by the contractor in the execution of this contract. The awarded contractor Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 46
expressly agrees to comply with the penalty provisions of California Labor Code Section 1776.
5.4 Additional Requirements
If the Proposer is providing a technology, information system, application, data collection mechanism, or rulemaking that handles or collects Personally Identifiable Information (PII), the Proposer must complete the Data Privacy Policy Attachment, describe d in Section 4.2 (Proposal Content – Mandatory Attachments).
1. Technology & Project Purpose
a. A detailed description of the technology, platform, or system proposed, including its primary purpose, functionality, and intended outcomes within the scope of this project.
2. Data Involved
a. A summary of the types of data that will be collected, used, or processed as part of this project / technology solution. This should explicitly include any PII, personal health information (PHI), financial data, or other sensitive data, if applicable. Proposals should also note how data classification and protection measures will be addressed.
3. Data Access & Roles
a. A clear outline of all parties who will have access to the data, including internal personnel (e.g., employees), external parties (e.g., contractors, consultants), and third party-vendors. The roles, responsibilities and access levels for each group should be clearly defined.
4. Supporting Documentation (Optional but recommended)
a. Proposers are encouraged to provide supporting documentation such as:
i. A standard project charter.
ii. Data collection and processing workflows or mechanisms. iii. Diagrams or data flow charts outlining the technical architecture or data movement.
5. Digital Trust for Places and Routines (DTPR) Vendor Worksheet
In addition, if selected Proposers must comply with the Long Beach Data Privacy Policy, which requires that mid- and high-risk technologies that collect PII conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA). A PIA is an in -depth review of how data is collected and managed, and identifies the anticipated impacts that select projects managed by the City will have on the public’s privacy. The PIA Questionnaire is available [here].
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 47
In addition, if contractor is providing a solution or service(s) that includes Payment Card (Credit Card) services, then:
1. The solution system shall be Payment Card industry (PCI) compliant, and proof of compliance will be verified:
a. The Contractor shall provide an unexpired Attestation of Compliance (AOC) (or equivalent document) which is signed by an authorized executive of the Contractor organization.
b. The AOC form must leverage current (i.e. PCI v4.0.1) requirements and include all Contractor products and services to be utilized by the City of Long Beach. c. If the Contractor is a PCI Level 1 merchant, the AOC (or equivalent document) must also be signed by a Qualified Security Assessor (QSA) in good standing with PCI Council.
d. Third Party Contractor(s) whose system(s) have the ability to impact the Contractor’s system shall submit individual AOC(s) with the same requirements as the Contractor or are required to be listed and covered by the Contractor’s AOC.
e. A PCI v4.0.1 Responsibility Matrix must be submitted with each AOC by the Contractor and/or Third Party Contractor(s).
f. Proof of compliance shall be performed for each Contractor and/or Third Party Contractor(s) by the City’s PCI Compliance Team.
g. Contractor and/or Third Party Contractor(s) with invalid AOC and Responsibility Matrix documents shall be requested to resubmit documents and/or participate in City PCI activities as requested.
1. In addition, the Contractor shall provide adequate security on all covered contractor information systems. For covered contractor information systems that are part of an Information Technology (IT) service or system operated on behalf of the City of Long Beach (CLB), to provide adequate security, the Contractor shall implement, at a minimum, the following information security protections a. Limit information system access to authorized users, processes acting on behalf of authorized users, or devices (including other information systems). b. Limit information system access to the types of transactions and functions that authorized users are permitted to execute.
c. Verify and control/limit connections to and use of external information systems.
d. Control information posted or processed on publicly accessible information systems.
Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 48
e. Identify information system users, processes acting on behalf of users, or devices.
f. Authenticate (or verify) the identities of those users, processes, or devices, as a prerequisite to allowing access to organizational information systems. g. Sanitize or destroy information system media containing CLB Information or Data before disposal or release for reuse.
h. Limit physical access to organizational information systems, equipment, and the respective operating environments to authorized individuals. i. Escort visitors and monitor visitor activity; maintain audit logs of physical access; and control and manage physical access devices. j. Monitor, control, and protect organizational communications (i.e., information transmitted or received by organizational information systems) at the external boundaries and key internal boundaries of the information systems. k. Implement subnetworks for publicly accessible system components that are physically or logically separated from internal networks. l. Identify, report, and correct information and information system flaws in a timely manner.
m. Provide protection from malicious code at appropriate locations within organizational information systems.
n. Update malicious code protection mechanisms when new releases are available.
o. Perform periodic scans of the information system and real -time scans of files from external sources as files are downloaded, opened, or executed.
5.5 Protest Procedures
Who May Protest
Only a Proposer who has actually submitted a proposal is eligible to protest a contract awarded through a Request for Proposals (RFP). A Proposer may not rely on the protest submitted by another Proposer but must pursue its own protest.
Time for Protest
The City will post a notice of the intent to award a contract at least ten (10) business days before an award is made. The notice will be available to all Proposers who submitted a proposal via the City’s electronic bid notification system at http://www.longbeach.gov/purchasing. A Proposer desiring to submit a protest for a proposal must do so within five (5) business days of the electronic notification of intent to Bikeshare | RFP - PW-25-631 | Template v3.14.25 | 49
award. The City Purchasing Agent must receive the protest by the close of business on the fifth (5th) business day following posting of notification of intent to award the contract.
Proposers are responsible for registering with the City’s electronic bid n otification system and maintaining an updated Contractor profile. The City is not responsible for Proposers’ failure to obtain notification for any reason, including but not limited to failure to maintain updated email addresses, failure to open/read electronic messages and failure of their own computer/technology equipment. The City’s RFP justification memo will be available for review by protesters once the notification of intent to award has been posted via the City’s electronic bid notification system.
Form of Protest
The protest must be in writing and signed by the individual who signed the proposal or, if the Proposer is a corporation, by an officer of the corporation, and addressed to the City Purchasing Agent. Protests must be submitted via the email address above. They must include a valid email address and phone number. Protests must set forth a complete and detailed statement of the grounds for the protest and include all relevant information to support the grounds stated, and must refer to specific portions of the RFP and attachments upon which the protest is based. Once the protest is received by the City Purchasing Agent, the City will not accept additional information on the protest unless the City requests it.
City Response to Protest
The City Purchasing Agent or designee will respond with a decision regarding the protest within five (5) business days of receipt of protest to the email address provided in the protest. This decision shall be final.
Limitation of Remedy
The procedure and time limits set forth herein are mandatory and are the Proposer’s sole and exclusive remedy in the event of a protest. The Proposer’s failure to comply with these procedures shall constitute a waiver of any right to further pursue a protest, including filing a Government Code Claim or initiation of legal proceedings.
223 E 1st Street
Long Beach, CA 90802
562.485.4492
[email protected]
June 9, 2026
VIA EMAIL
City of Long Beach
Department of Financial Management – Purchasing Division Attn: Michelle Wilson, City Purchasing Agent
411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 6th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Email: [email protected]
Re: Protest of Notice of Intent to Award — RFP No. PW-25-631 (Bikeshare) Dear Ms. Wilson:
I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Pedal Movement, Inc., and I am authorized to act on its behalf in connection with RFP No. PW-25-631. On behalf of Pedal Movement, and as an officer of the corporation, I submit this protest of the City's Notice of Intent to Award the above-referenced contract to Drop Mobility.
The grounds for this protest are set forth in full in the enclosed letter from our counsel, Brandon D. Young of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, dated June 9, 2026, which Pedal Movement hereby adopts and incorporates by reference as its protest in its entirety, together with the exhibits referenced therein.
Pedal Movement respectfully requests that the City sustain this protest for the reasons stated in the enclosed letter. We appreciate the City's consideration and remain available to provide any additional information the City may request.
Sincerely,
Nick Russo,
MPP
President & CEO, Pedal Movement, Inc.
Enclosures: Protest letter dated June 9, 2026 (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP), with Exhibits 1–4
cc: Rachel Yos, Department of Financial Management
Tommy Ryan, Purchasing Division
Attachment B
Brandon D Young
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (310) 312-4181
[email protected]
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224
VIA E-MAIL
City of Long Beach
Department of Financial Management — Purchasing Division Attn: Michelle Wilson, City Purchasing Agent
411 W. Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
Email: [email protected]
Re: Protest of Award / Request for Proposals RFP – PW-25-631 Bikeshare Ms. Wilson:
On behalf of Pedal Movement, Inc. (“Pedal Movement” or “Protester”), please accept this protest of the City of Long Beach’s (“City”) award of the Bikeshare Request for Proposals, RFP No. PW-25-631 (“RFP”), to Drop Mobility (“Drop”). As discussed below, Pedal Movement requests that the City sustain this protest and recommend an award to Pedal Movement. In the alternative, Pedal Movement asks that the City cancel the RFP.
I. INTRODUCTION
This protest challenges the award on three independent—and mutually reinforcing— grounds that each require reversal.
First, Drop’s proposal is non-responsive. Drop failed to satisfy the RFP’s mandatory minimum qualifications, including core experience requirements for fleet size and bikeshare operations. The RFP makes clear that compliance with these minimum requirements is not discretionary—failure to satisfy them requires rejection. Yet the City proceeded to evaluate and now intends to award a contract to a proposer that did not meet those threshold criteria.
Second, the evaluation process was flawed, resulting in materially distorted scoring.
Pedal Movement was downgraded for alleged deficiencies that are not supported by the record, while comparable or greater deficiencies in Drop’s proposal were overlooked. Any unequal application of the RFP criteria—particularly in a procurement decided by a narrow margin— undermines the integrity of the selection process and the resulting award decision.
June 9, 2026 Client-Matter: 71279-030
Ms. Michelle Wilson
City of Long Beach
June 9, 2026
Third, the City appears to have failed to conduct basic due diligence and provide full and complete bidder proposals, as required under law. The record contains no evidence that the City verified Drop’s claimed qualifications despite inconsistencies, no evidence that evaluators were given standards by which to equally evaluate proposers, and the City withheld critical cost information necessary to evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of the award. Without that information, neither the Protester nor the public can meaningfully assess whether the procurement complied with governing standards.
Taken together, these errors go to the core of the procurement. A proposal that fails mandatory qualifications cannot be awarded; an evaluation that applies unequal standards cannot stand; and a process that lacks verification and transparency cannot be sustained. For each of these reasons, the City’s award decision must be set aside and the contract awarded to Pedal Movement, or, alternatively, the RFP canceled.
II. BACKGROUND
On December 16, 2025, the City issued RFP No. PW-25-631, seeking proposals for the provision, operation, and maintenance of a City-owned bikeshare system. As the RFP explains, the selected contractor must maintain a minimum fleet of 700 bicycles, with capacity to scale as needed, under the supervision of the Department of Public Works. See Ex. 1 (RFP) at Sec. 1.1.
The RFP further provided that award would be made based on overall value to the City, considering all evaluation factors rather than lowest price alone. See Ex. 1 (RFP) at Sec. 5.2(9).
As to the evaluation factors, the RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated based on four criteria: Organizational Capacity & Experience (25%), Method of Approach (40%), Communications & Reporting (20%), and Reasonableness of Cost (15%), with up to an additional 10% in local preference credits. See Ex. 1 (RFP) at Sec. 3.2. A four-person City selection committee evaluated the proposals.
Pedal Movement timely submitted a proposal addressing all requirements of the RFP.
Following evaluation, Pedal Movement received a score of 89%. Drop received a score of 91%, a difference of only 2%. On May 11, 2026, the City recommended Drop for award.
III. GROUNDS FOR PROTEST
On their face, the results of the RFP indicate a close competition. However, the outcome here was not the product of a fair evaluation. The award rests on a Drop proposal that did not satisfy the RFP’s mandatory minimum qualifications, was evaluated using inconsistent standards,
Ms. Michelle Wilson
City of Long Beach
June 9, 2026
and was accepted without the transparency required by law. For these reasons, the protest should be sustained.
A. DROP’S PROPOSAL WAS NON-RESPONSIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT
SATISFY MANDATORY MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
A procurement cannot be salvaged where the prospective awardee has disregarded mandatory rules designed to preserve competitive integrity. Accordingly, proposals that materially deviate from the requirements of an RFP must be rejected. See Konica Bus. Machines U.S.A., Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 206 Cal. App. 3d 449 (1988). Consistent with that standard, the RFP clearly states that the “[f]ailure to meet a mandatory requirement will result in the rejection of a proposal as non-responsive.” See Ex. 1 (RFP) at Sec. 5.1(16) (emphasis added).
Moreover, ‘[t]o be eligible” for an award, “[p]roposers must meet” a host of “minimum requirements.” Id. at Sec. 3.1. Here, Drop failed to satisfy multiple threshold qualifications, and its proposal therefore should have been rejected without further evaluation.
1. Drop did not demonstrate the required experience managing fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles.
The RFP required a “[p]roven track record managing fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles in urban environments comparable to Long Beach.” See Ex. 1 (RFP) at Sec. 3.1.
Drop failed to meet this requirement. Drop identified five reference projects; however, none demonstrate experience managing multiple bikeshare systems with fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles. See Ex. 2 (Drop Prop.) at p. 11-15 (References). At most, Drop identifies a single project in New Orleans where it claims to have “delivered” 1,000 bicycles. Id. But delivering 1 equipment is not the same as managing a fleet of that size. The RFP turns on operational fleet- management experience, not supply or deployment.
This defect is material. The City’s bikeshare program requires the contractor to operate a large and continuously deployed fleet in a dense urban environment, including maintenance, rebalancing, customer service, and day-to-day operational control at scale. The minimum qualification exists to ensure that the selected contractor has actually performed those functions.
Permitting Drop to proceed without the requisite experience relaxes the standard for one proposer while holding others to the terms of the RFP as written, which is inherently unfair.
See https://www.wwno.org/local-regional-news/2024-09-30/why-new-orleans-blue-bikes-hubs-are-nearly-empty 1 (last accessed Jun. 7, 2026) (article describing shrinking fleet sizes in New Orleans, noting that the non-profit operator of Drop’s equipment had lost 566 bicycles due to theft and vandalism).
Ms. Michelle Wilson
City of Long Beach
June 9, 2026
Because Drop failed to demonstrate the required experience managing fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles, it did not meet a mandatory minimum qualification. Under the RFP’s express terms, its proposal was non-responsive and should have been rejected.
2. Drop failed to satisfy the RFP’s three-year minimum qualification for operating bikeshare programs.
The RFP also requires “[a]t least three (3) years of demonstrated experience operating bikeshare programs within municipal or regional contexts.” See RFP Sec. 3.1. As the RFP explains, “operating” a bikeshare program includes providing “all equipment, staffing, and services necessary to ensure reliable daily bike deployment, rebalancing, on-demand and routine maintenance, and responsive customer service across all neighborhoods, with emphasis on equitable access, non-digital/unbanked payment options, and first/last-mile transit connectivity.” Id. at Sec. 1.1.
Drop failed to meet this requirement. Of the five reference projects identified in its proposal, publicly available information shows that Drop serves as the actual system operator in only two: Redwood Bike Share (launched October 2024) and Valley Bike (launched August 2024). See Ex. 2 (Drop Prop.) at pp. 12-15. The remaining systems—New Orleans Blue Bikes, 2 CDPHP Cycle!, and Kansas City Bike Share—are operated by third-party entities, with Drop 3 4 providing, at most, bicycles and/or technology rather than exercising operational control.
Drop only has one year and seven months of qualifying experience—well short of the three-year minimum. By failing to distinguish between its role as an equipment/technology provider and that of the system operator, Drop’s proposal materially overstates its experience and creates the impression that it satisfies the RFP’s minimum qualifications, which it does not.
This defect is material. The minimum three-year operating experience requirement ensures that the selected contractor has demonstrated the ability to manage these responsibilities See https://bluebikesnola.com/#about (last accessed Jun. 7, 2026) (stating “Blue Krewe is a local community-based 2 nonprofit that operates and manages Blue Bikes”
Shared Mobility Inc. appears to operate CDPHP Cycle!. Publicly available information includes the LinkedIn 3 profile of the Operations Manager listing Shared Mobility Inc. as his employer ((13) Stephen Bratspis | LinkedIn), a story on the company blog (CDPHP Cycle! Breaks Ridership Record), and social media posts about their operation of CDPHP Cycle! (Shared Mobility Inc. | Buffalo NY | Facebook) See https://bikesharekc.com/about/ (last accessed Jun. 7, 2026) (noting “Bike Share KC is responsible for day-to-day 4 operations, maintenance, customer support, and marketing . . . . Bike Share KC operates on a technology platform provided by our vendor, Drop Mobility”).
Ms. Michelle Wilson
City of Long Beach
June 9, 2026
over time in real-world conditions. A proposer lacking that experience presents a significantly higher risk of not meeting City’s service and equity objectives.
Because Drop did not demonstrate the required minimum of three years of bikeshare operations experience, it failed to meet a mandatory qualification. Accordingly, Drop’s proposal was non-responsive and should have been rejected without further evaluation.
B. THE CITY’S EV ALUATION OF PEDAL MOVEMENT WAS FLAWED
AND ARBITRARY
Even if Drop’s proposal was responsive—it was not—the award must still be rejected because the evaluation process was flawed. California law requires public entities to evaluate all proposals equally. Indeed, a government agency “must treat all bidders alike and with equal fairness.” Wiechman Engineers v. California, 31 Cal.App.3d 741, 753 (1973); Kajima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority, 23 Cal.4th 305, 317 (2000) (competitive bidding laws require “fairness in evaluating and accepting bids”).
The specific errors described below—with respect to the “Communications and Reporting” and “Method of Approach” evaluative criteria—show that Pedal Movement was not afforded equal treatment. This is material because the overall scoring was so close. A change in rating by a single evaluator in the “Communications and Reporting” would create a tie or a change in rating by a single evaluator in the “Method of Approach” would result in a Pedal Movement award recommendation.
1. The City unreasonably downgraded Pedal Movement for allegedly failing to address a white-label model
The RFP required proposers to provide a City-branded bikeshare system—that is, a white-label model under which the service would be presented as City-owned and City-branded.
See Ex. 1 (RFP) at Sec. 1.1.
Pedal Movement’s proposal satisfied this requirement. Its Narrative Proposal consistently presents the system as “Long Beach Bikeshare,” including a cover page depicting City-branded bicycles and Appendix A materials showing Long Beach-branded equipment. See Ex. 3 (Pedal Movement Prop.) at Cover Page, Appendix A. These materials collectively demonstrate a City- branded, white-label system fully aligned with the RFP’s requirements.
Despite this, in the “Method of Approach” criterion, “Rater 2” concluded that Pedal Movement “did not explicitly address white labeling in the narrative,” a conclusion not supported
Ms. Michelle Wilson
City of Long Beach
June 9, 2026
by the proposal. See Ex. 4 (City Eval. Toolkit) at Tab No. 4. But, the RFP did not require proposers to use the phrase “white-label.” By elevating form over substance, the City applied the evaluation criterion inconsistently and improperly downgraded Pedal Movement despite the fact that Pedal Movement proposed a City-branded system.
Had the evaluation for this criterion been conducted correctly, and Pedal Movement received an “Excellent” from a single rater in “Method of Approach,” Pedal Movement would have ranked higher than Drop. See Ex. 4 (City Eval. Toolkit) at Tabs Nos. 4, 7.
2. The City unreasonably downgraded Pedal Movement for allegedly failing to re-use the current bike fleet
The RFP required proposers to demonstrate an operational approach capable of efficiently managing the City’s bikeshare system and accommodating fluctuating demand, including through appropriate use of available assets. See Ex. 1 (RFP) at p.2.
Pedal Movement satisfied this requirement by proposing to utilize existing City-owned bicycles to meet periods of elevated demand. As stated in its Proposal, “during the Olympic period, temporary fleet augmentation will occur through short-term reactivation of existing legacy assets,” allowing Pedal Movement to increase capacity while avoiding unnecessary long- term costs. See Ex. 3 (Pedal Movement Prop.) at Cost Proposal, p. 13.
The City’s evaluation was flawed. For the “Method of Approach” criterion, evaluators credited Drop as the only proposer incorporating use of City-owned bicycles. See Ex. 4 (City Eval. Toolkit) at Tab No. 4. However, Pedal Movement’s proposal contains a clear, documented plan to deploy existing City assets in a targeted, cost-efficient manner. See Ex. 3 (Pedal Movement Prop.) at Cost Proposal, p. 13. By awarding credit to Drop for a feature Pedal Movement also proposed, the City did not evaluate proposals on an equal basis.
This unequal treatment resulted in an improper scoring advantage to Drop and materially affected the outcome of the procurement, requiring corrective action. Drop received an “Excellent” in “Method of Approach” from 3 out of the 4 evaluators, including Rater 2. Pedal Movement received all “Good” ratings, but had Pedal Movement been treated equally and received an “Excellent” from any single rater in “Method of Approach,” Pedal Movement would have ranked higher than Drop. See Ex. 4 (City Eval. Toolkit) at Tabs Nos. 4, 7.
3. The City improperly evaluated cost-related labor assumptions under the wrong Evaluation Criterion
Ms. Michelle Wilson
City of Long Beach
June 9, 2026
The RFP established distinct evaluation criteria, including “Method of Approach” (40%), Communications and Reporting” (20%), and “Reasonableness of Cost” (15%), and required the City to evaluate proposals in accordance with those defined categories and weightings. See Ex. 1 (RFP) at Sec 3.2.
Pedal Movement’s proposal included a staffing model—specifically, a four-day, 32-hour workweek compensated at full-time levels—presented in its Cost Proposal and directly tied to pricing and cost structure, rather than to technical approach. See Ex. 3 (Pedal Movement Prop.) at Cost Proposal, p. 2.
The City nevertheless evaluated concerns regarding the cost efficiency of this staffing model under the “Method of Approach” factor. See Ex. 4 (City Eval. Toolkit) at Tab No. 4. This was a misapplication of the RFP’s evaluation criteria. (This happened more than once. Rater 2 also conflated cost issues with his/her evaluation of “Communications and Reporting,” with comments addressing cost when discussing what should have been a technical evaluation of Pedal Movement’s proposed customer service solution. Id.)
By treating a cost-related consideration as a technical weakness, the City applied an unstated evaluation standard, distorted the RFP’s prescribed weighting framework, and effectively penalized Pedal Movement under a factor carrying significantly greater weight than cost. This error is prejudicial because it amplified the impact of the evaluators’ concerns and disproportionately reduced Pedal Movement’s score. In a procurement decided by a narrow scoring margin, this misclassification is material.
Had the item here been evaluated equally and Pedal Movement received an “Excellent” from any single rater in “Method of Approach,” Pedal Movement would have ranked higher than Drop. See Ex. 4 (City Eval. Toolkit) at Tabs Nos. 4, 7. (Further, had Pedal Movement received an “Excellent” from any additional single rater in “Communications and Reporting,” Pedal Movement and Drop would have been in a tie for the contract award. Id.)
4. The City unreasonably overlooked App flow materials in Pedal Movement’s Proposal
The RFP required proposers to provide “pictures of app flow and internal app messaging to customers concerning usage, geofencing, and safety features,” in order to demonstrate the functionality and user experience of the proposed bikeshare application. See RFP Sec. 3.2.
Ms. Michelle Wilson
City of Long Beach
June 9, 2026
Pedal Movement satisfied this requirement by providing detailed app flow screenshots and accompanying descriptions in both its Narrative Proposal and Appendix A. See Ex. 3 (Pedal Movement Prop.) at 34; see also id. at Appendix A, p. 59. These materials depict user interface functionality and customer-facing messaging addressing usage, geofencing, and safety features, including specific responsive content.
In the “Communications and Reporting” section, Rater 2 nevertheless concluded that Pedal Movement’s “app flow screenshots [were] not prominently provided.” See Ex. 4 (City Eval. Toolkit) at Tab No. 4. That finding is inconsistent with the record. Pedal Movement submitted the materials required by the RFP, and the evaluation does not identify any actual deficiency in those materials. See Ex. 3 (Pedal Movement Prop.) at 34; see also id. at Appendix A, p. 59. By failing to recognize or credit clearly responsive content, the City applied the evaluation criterion unreasonably and imposed an unstated standard regarding prominence or placement. This resulted in an unwarranted downgrade under a scored factor and materially impacted Pedal Movement’s overall score in a closely ranked procurement.
Drop received an “Excellent” in “Communications and Reporting” from all evaluators, including Rater 2. Pedal Movement received three “Good” ratings and one “Excellent.” Had the item here been evaluated equally and Pedal Movement received an “Excellent” from any additional single rater in “Communications and Reporting”, Pedal Movement and Drop would have been in a tie for the contract award. See Ex. 4 (City Eval. Toolkit) at Tab Nos. 4, 7.
C. THE “EV ALUATION CRITERIA” LACKED OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
TO REVIEW PROPOSALS
An RFP must include evaluation criteria that are clear, bounded, and objective to permit proposals to be evaluated on a common standard. See Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation Dist., 44 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1412-1413 (1996) (“Generally, a public entity’s failure to use correct and exclusive criteria to award a public contract may constitute an abuse of discretion”). Where evaluation criteria are unmoored from objective requirements, the procurement process becomes vulnerable to inconsistent scoring, unequal treatment, and favoritism—undermining the core purposes of competitive bidding. Id. That is the case here.
The City failed to provide evaluators with specific guidance on how to assign rankings.
For example, on the Rubric page of the Evaluation Toolkit (Tab 2), Section B, Column D sets forth general criteria for each evaluation category, including “Organizational Capacity and Experience,” “Method of Approach,” “Communications and Reporting,” and “Cost Reasonableness.” See Ex. 4 (Eval. Toolkit) at Tab No. 2. However, beginning in Column F, the
Ms. Michelle Wilson
City of Long Beach
June 9, 2026
City had the opportunity to provide evaluators with detailed scoring guidance under the heading “Additional Guidance for Evaluating Each Criterion (Optional),” including specific benchmarks for ratings such as “Excellent,” “Good,” “Fair,” or “Poor.” Id. The City left these sections blank, meaning evaluators were apparently left without objective standards, leading to arbitrary and inconsistent rankings. Id. 5
This lack of consistency is evident in the “Organizational Capacity and Experience” criterion. Three of the four evaluators rated Pedal Movement and Drop as equal in experience.
One evaluator even rated Drop as equal to Lyft Bikes and Scooters, a company with over 15 years of experience operating some of the largest bike share systems in the United States.
Similarly, Pedal Movement has more relevant experience than Drop, with eight years operating the Long Beach Bike Share system locally. As noted above, Drop has operated systems for less than two years and none approach a scale similar to Lyft or Pedal Movement.
Given that “Organizational Capacity and Experience” accounts for 25% of the total score, the absence of defined evaluation criteria materially affected the outcome. If evaluators had been provided objective standards, and if even one more evaluator had rated Pedal Movement higher than Drop in this category, the overall rankings would have resulted in a tie. If two additional evaluators had appropriately rated Pedal Movement higher than Drop, Pedal Movement would have been ranked above Drop.
D. CITY RECORDS INDICATE AN INADEQUATE REVIEW OF
PROPOSERS, INCLUDING DROP
The evaluation flaws are compounded by another apparent problem: the record contains no evidence that the City performed basic due diligence to verify Drop’s claimed experience.
Equally problematic, with the exception of Rater 2, evaluators apparently provided no explanation supporting their 5 scores. As a matter of basic procurement law, an award decision must be adequately documented—and the failure of the government to document an award is sufficient cause to sustain a protest. See, e.g., Peraton, Inc., Comp. Gen.
Dec. B-420919.2 et al., 2022 CPD ¶ 312 (the selection decision must be documented in sufficient detail to show that it was reasonable); Tech Marine Business, Inc., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-420872 et al., 2022 CPD ¶ 260, 64 GC ¶ 324 (an agency that fails to document its source selection decision adequately bears the risk that it may be unable to determine whether the agency had a reasonable basis for its source selection decision); CharDonnay Dialysis, LLC, Comp. Gen.
Dec. B-420910 et al., 2022 CPD ¶ 273, 64 GC ¶ 353 (same); Starlight Corp., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-420267.3 et al., 2022 CPD ¶ 65, 64 GC ¶ 119 (when an agency fails to document or retain evaluation materials, it bears the risk that there may not be adequate supporting rationale in the record to conclude that the agency had a reasonable basis for its evaluation conclusions). Federal procurement decisions are considered “strongly persuas[ive]” authority in California.
California Pacific Architects Collaborative v. State of California (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 110, 125; see also Haynes v.
EMC Mortg. Corp. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 329, 334 (noting “federal decisions on questions of state law can be persuasive authority”).
Ms. Michelle Wilson
City of Long Beach
June 9, 2026
Under California law, a public agency has an affirmative obligation to ensure that the selected bidder is qualified to perform the contract. See Boydston v. Napa Sanitation Dist. (1990) 222 Cal.
App. 3d 1362, 1370 (agency must determine whether the awarded bidder is responsible and capable of performance). The RFP reinforces this obligation by expressly authorizing the City to investigate proposer qualifications, including by contacting references, current users, and “any available source,” and by seeking any information “deemed pertinent to the evaluation process.” See Ex. 1 (RFP) at Sec. 5.2(3).
City verification of Drop was especially important here because Drop’s proposal relied on representations regarding fleet size, operating experience, and technical capabilities that go directly to minimum qualifications. As explained above, publicly available information raises significant questions as to whether Drop actually operated the referenced systems at the required scale and level of responsibility.
Had the City undertaken further diligence—such as contacting the listed references or comparing the submission to publicly available information—it may have identified discrepancies bearing directly on Drop’s compliance with mandatory qualifications. Instead, the City appears to have accepted those claims at face value and allowed them to form the basis for award. That failure distorted the procurement and further confirms that the award cannot stand.
E. THE RFP PROCESS LACKS TRANSPARENCY AND DOCUMENTATION The lack of diligence is particularly troubling because the City has also failed to provide the transparency required to permit meaningful review of the procurement. State law requires that information relevant to the selection of a contractor be disclosed prior to approval and with sufficient time to allow “all interested parties ample opportunity to scrutinize and protest the proposed award.” Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1065, 1073–74 (2006). This requirement reflects the principle that “the public may have a legitimate and substantial interest in scrutinizing the process leading to the selection of the winning proposal.” Id. Conversely, where a public entity withholds material information and creates disparities in access, such conduct is indicative of favoritism. Great West Contractors, Inc. v. Irvine Unified School Dist., 187 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1429 (2010).
Here, the City failed to provide complete proposal materials in response to Pedal Movement’s CPRA request. Specifically, the City withheld the cost proposals of Drop and other bidders, even though those materials are directly relevant to the evaluation, and particularly significant because “Reasonableness of Cost” was a scored factor. Without full and complete copies of proposals, Pedal Movement cannot meaningfully assess whether Drop’s pricing is
Ms. Michelle Wilson
City of Long Beach
June 9, 2026
realistic, whether it aligns with Drop’s proposed approach, or whether the City evaluated cost in a fair and consistent manner across proposers.
In addition, of the four evaluators on the committee, only one—Rater 2—provided any documented rationale in the “Evaluation Toolkit” disclosed through public records. The remaining three evaluators offered no notes, reasoning, or supporting analysis for their ratings, rendering the evaluation incomplete and unsupported.
Because public funds are at issue, the public has a substantial interest in understanding how those funds are to be spent and whether the selected proposal is viable and economically sound. The City’s withholding of key materials, coupled with the absence of meaningful evaluation documentation, independently undermines confidence in the procurement, and therefore, the City should sustain this protest.
IV .CONCLUSION
The award to Drop must be rejected. Drop’s proposal failed to satisfy mandatory minimum qualifications, the City evaluated proposals unequally and unreasonably, the record contains no evidence of adequate verification of Drop’s claimed qualifications, and the City withheld key materials necessary to permit meaningful review of the procurement. Each of those defects independently undermines the award; and together, compel reversal.
Accordingly, Pedal Movement respectfully requests that the City sustain this protest, reject Drop’s proposal as non-responsive, and award the contract to Pedal Movement. In the alternative, the City should cancel the RFP.
//
//
//
Pedal Movement reserves all rights, remedies, and privileges. Nothing contained herein shall constitute or be construed to be an implied or express waiver of Pedal Movement’s rights or remedies of any nature and kind.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Ms. Michelle Wilson
City of Long Beach
June 9, 2026
BDY
Sincerely,
/s/ Brandon D Young
Brandon D Young
Ms. Michelle Wilson
City of Long Beach
June 9, 2026
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
1.City of Long Beach Request for Proposals RFP PW-25-631 Bikeshare
2.Drop Mobility Proposal responding to RFP PW-25-631 Bikeshare
3.Pedal Movement Proposal responding to RFP PW-25-631 Bikeshare
4.Evaluation Toolkit spreadsheet, including 7 tabs
Department of Financial Management
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 6
June 29, 2026
Mr. Nick Russo
223 E 1st Street
Long Beach, CA 90802
Re: Response to Protest for RFP PW-25-631
Dear Mr. Russo:
Thank you for participating in the City of Long Beach’s (City) recent Request for Proposal (RFP) RFP PW -25-631 Bikeshare. Pursuant to the “Protest Procedures” outlined on pages 48 and 49 of the RFP, the letter of protest submitted by Pedal Movement Inc. (Pedal Movement) was received in a timely manner. The basis for the protest along with the City’s response are as follows:
BASIS FOR PROTEST:
“Drop did not demonstrate the required experience managing fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles…Because Drop failed to demonstrate the required experience managing fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles, it did not meet a mandatory minimum qualification.
Under the RFP’s express terms, its proposal was non -responsive and should have been rejected.”
CITY RESPONSE:
The City agrees with your statement that managing fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles is a minimum requirement. Per Section 3.1 of the RFP, Minimum Qualifications, a “proven track record managing fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles in urban environments comparable to Long Beach” is required in order for proposers “to be eligible.” However, the City’s intent regarding this minimum qualification was in reference to the totality of a company’s multiple fleets in multiple urban environments. Although the City regrets its use of ambiguous language, it appears that all proposers met this minimum qualification and were thus considered responsive. The City can confirm its evaluation of minimum qualifications was consistent amongst all proposers. th
Floor
Long Beach, CA
90802
(562)
570
-
6425
Attachment C
Furthermore, the City performed additional due diligence after receiving your firm’s protest. Upon an additional cursory review, it appears Pedal Movement benefitted from the City’s intended application of its minimum qualifications, as the proposal did no t specify fleet sizes of referenced projects. The proposal states that the City of Long Beach’s fleet was “approximately” 1,000 bikes, whereas the RFP states that the fleet “consists of roughly 650 beach cruiser bicycles that are currently in working condi tion, with an additional 250 requiring major maintenance before they can be put back into service,” which totals roughly 900. The fleets of the other referenced projects appear to be less than 1,000 and operated by your subcontractor.
BASIS FOR PROTEST:
“Drop failed to satisfy the RFP’s three -year minimum qualification for operating bikeshare programs…Because Drop did not demonstrate the required minimum of three years of bikeshare operations experience, it failed to meet a mandatory qualification. Accordingly, Drop’s proposal was non-responsive and should have been rejected without further evaluation.”
CITY RESPONSE:
The City agrees with your statement that at least three years of bikeshare operations experience is a mandatory qualification. Per Section 3.1 of the RFP, Minimum Qualifications, “at least three (3) years of demonstrated experience operating bikeshare programs within municipal or regional contexts” is required in order for proposers “to be eligible.”
It is the City’s understanding that the intended awardee was founded in 2017 and has 8 years of experience with bikeshare programs, including in New Orleans since 2021 and Albany since 2023. General speaking, every bikeshare program is unique, and it is not uncommon for operators to work with subcontractors, non -profits, government agencies, or other organizations to achieve a successful program. Similarly, since each program is unique, operations naturally differ for each scenario. What is required of an operator in one program may be different in another.
Upon evaluation, the City determined that the intended awardee met this minimum threshold and demonstrated at least three years of experience operating bikeshare programs. Specifically, in reference to the New Orleans program which you call out in your pro test letter, the City found that the intended awardee had experience “transition[ing] a legacy system,” “delivering over 1,000 e-bikes,” “working through major special events,” “help[ing] the City transition to a non-profit model,” “modernizing” their fleet, “creat[ing] many creative memberships and operational processes to manage surges in ridership,” “reviv[ing] bike share,” “design[ing] an inclusive Equity Program,” “help[ing] the system prepare for the surge in rid ership,” “implement[ing] an Equity Membership Program,” “managing bike share operations during large -scale events including the Super Bowl,” “understand[ing] the operational demands of surge ridership, temporary station deployments, and coordinat[ing] logistics with event organizers and public safety agencies,” “apply[ing]…[a] combined digital and field enforcement model” for parking mitigation strategies, providing “realtime and historical reporting to multiple municipal partners,” “supporting compliance audits, performanc e reviews, and independent evaluation,” “implement[ing] reducedfare and accessibility focused programs,” “using data to refine outreach and improve participation,” “demonstrating…innovative solutions like meeting geographical rebalancing targets,” and “creating equity-based Long Term lending programs.”
The quote from your protest letter that “all equipment, staffing, and services necessary to ensure reliable daily bike deployment, rebalancing, on -demand and routine maintenance, and responsive customer service across all neighborhoods, with emphasis on equitable access, non-digital/unbanked payment options, and first/lastmile transit connectivity” was not a definition of “operating” like you claim; rather, that description was a statement of what a successful proposer would provide, as evidenced by the fact that the qualifying phrase “the successful proposer will provide” immediately preceded the aforementioned quote.
Based on the submitted proposal and the City’s findings, it appears that the intended awardee meets the three years of experience minimum qualification and was thus considered responsive. Moreover, the City has determined that the intended awardee is capable of providing the services necessary for a successful deployment. The City can confirm its evaluation of minimum qualifications was consistent amongst all proposers.
BASIS FOR PROTEST:
“The City unreasonably downgraded Pedal Movement for allegedly failing to address a white -label model…Rater 2 concluded that Pedal Movement ‘did not explicitly address white labeling in the narrative…’ [and] by elevating form over substance, the City applied the evaluation criterion inconsistently and improperly downgraded Pedal Movement despite the fact that Pedal Movement proposed a City-branded system.”
CITY RESPONSE:
Per RFP Section 3.2 Evaluation Criteria, “proposals shall be consistently evaluated” against the specified criteria. Per the Selection Memo dated May 7, 2026, “a selection committee comprising of three members from the Department of Public Works and one member from the Department of Technology and Innovation, evaluated the proposals based on their subject matter expertise. The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the…evaluation criteria.” Pedal Movement’s scoring in the specific evaluation criteria is as follows: Organizational Capacity and Experience 22%; Method of Approach 30%; Communications and Reporting 16%; Reasonableness of Cost 11%. Your organization’s initial score was 79%. After receiving a 10% local preference credit, your organization’s final score was increased to 89%.
The City found no basis to support your claim that Pedal Movement was unreasonably downgraded for failing to address a white -label model. By your own admission, you describe the Cover Page and Appendix A as “depicting” and “showing” City -branded equipment. The City does not dispute this. However, providing images is not materially the same as conveying your intent in writing. You were responsible for submitting a proposal that clearly outlines and addresses the requisite scope of work. Failing to provide details and the omission of a clear explanation falls on the proposer, as it is up to them to provide the content of their submission. The evaluators can only evaluate the materials presented to them and will score the proposals accordingly.
Your protest letter claims that in the Method of Approach criterion, Rater 2 “concluded that Pedal Movement ‘did not explicitly address white labeling in the narrative,’” and that therefore “the City applied the evaluation criterion inconsistently and impr operly downgraded Pedal Movement.” All four evaluators scored Pedal Movement equally, with each one categorizing your proposal as “good” with a score of 30%. There appears to be no outliers in regards to how the evaluators scored your submission, as the Method of Approach scoring was consistent amongst all four of them.
BASIS FOR PROTEST:
“The City unreasonably downgraded Pedal Movement for allegedly failing to re -use the current bike fleet…The City’s evaluation was flawed. For the ‘Method of Approach’ criterion, evaluators credited Drop as the only proposed incorporating use of Cityowned bicycles…However, Pedal Movement’s proposal contains a clear, documented plan to deploy existing City assets in a targeted, cost -effective manner…By awarding credit to Drop for a feature Pedal Movement also proposed, the City did not evaluate proposals on an equal basis.”
CITY RESPONSE:
As previously stated, per RFP Section 3.2 Evaluation Criteria, “proposals shall be consistently evaluated” against the specified criteria. Per the Selection Memo dated May 7, 2026, “a selection committee comprising of three members from the Department of Public Works and one member from the Department of Technology and Innovation, evaluated the proposals based on their subject matter expertise. The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the…evaluation criteria.” Pedal Movement’s scoring in the specific evaluation criteria is as follows: Organizational Capacity and Experience 22%; Method of Approach 30%; Communications and Reporting 16%; Reasonableness of Cost 11%. Your organization’s initial score was 79%. After receiving a 10% local preference credit, your organization’s final score was increased to 89%.
The intended awardee had a final score of 91% after scoring higher in all categories but one. They did not receive a 10% local preference credit. Due to them receiving a higher score after evaluation, and based on the evaluation criteria specified in the R FP, your organization was not selected. The selection committee determined that the intended awardee’s proposal provided the best value to the City.
There were four proposals received on March 3, 2026. Due to the limited nature of a single contract award compared to the number of proposals received, not every proposer can be successful in being awarded in a competitive process. In fact, proposers were expected to provide their best submissions and compete with other proposers for the opportunity to win the award. The competitive nature of the process necessitates selecting the highest -scoring proposer in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in Section 3.2 of the RFP. It is important to note that not being selected does not necessarily mean the submission was inadequate or of poor quality.
That being said, the City found no basis to support your claim that Pedal Movement was unreasonably downgraded for failing to reuse the current bike fleet. The City acknowledges that your cost proposal stated that “during the Olympic period, temporary fleet augmentation will occur through short -term reactivation of existing legacy assets.” But the key aspect of an RFP, and its competitive nature, is that proposers are able to propose various solutions to the City’s challenges to adequately address the intended scope of work. There is not a one -size-fits-all approach. Rather, various proposers will propose their own unique solutions that they think will best address and lead to successful outcomes. It is up to the City, then, to evaluate according to the evaluation criteria to choose which proposal provides the best value to the City. In this situation, the intended awardee’s proposal simply scored better than Pedal Movement’s.
Your protest letter states that in the Method of Approach criterion, the intended awardee received “excellent” scores from three out of four evaluators. This is true. You also state that Pedal Movement received “good” scores from all four evaluators. This is also true. All four evaluators scored Pedal Movement equally, with each one categorizing your proposal as “good” with a score of 30%. There appears to be no outliers in regards to how the evaluators scored your submission, as the Method of Approach scor ing was consistent amongst all four of them. Simply put, the intended awardee scored an overall 38% for Method of Approach while Pedal Movement scored a 30%. Scoring lower than a competitor does not constitute a flawed evaluation.
BASIS FOR PROTEST:
“The City improperly evaluated cost -related labor assumptions under the wrong Evaluation Criterion…The City nevertheless evaluated concerns regarding the cost efficiency of this staffing model under the ‘Method of Approach’ factor…This was a misapplication of the RFP’s evaluation criteria…By treating cost-related consideration as a technical weakness, the City applied an unstated evaluation standard, distorted the RFP’s prescribed weighting framework, and effectively penalized Pedal Movement under a factor carrying significantly greater weight than cost…disproportionally reduc[ing] Pedal Movement’s score.”
CITY RESPONSE:
The City reviewed your claim and has determined that Pedal Movement’s score was not disproportionately reduced as a result of improper evaluation. Per RFP Section 3.2 Evaluation Criteria, Reasonableness of Cost was worth 15% and included specifics such as a “detailed cost and pricing structure…with pricing models structured to allow phased roll out…includ[ing] the City purchasing the vehicles,” a “cost structure in relation to the scope of services, fleet size, [and] service quality,” a “cost breakdown…ensur[ing] it supports the full range of services,” a breakdown reflective of a “scalable fleet” and “surge needs,” and “pricing models for equity programs.” Therefore, it is evident that the intent of the Reasonableness of Cost criterion is to evaluate cost. Since the proposed costs are based on how each proposer arrived at their solution, the costs will obviously vary by proposer. Put another way, the costs of each proposal will undoubtedly differ. Reasonableness of Cost, therefore, is evaluating the financia l costs of engaging with the proposed solution, i.e. how much does the proposal cost.
Compare that to Method of Approach, which evaluates how the proposers arrived at their cost. Method of Approach evaluates things such as “fleet size and vehicle specifications for initial deployment and [a] plan for any phased increases,” “operational strategies and…fleet mix, [and] scalable deployment,” an “eq uity program plan for equitable pricing,” a “community outreach plan,” plans for “maintenance schedule and rebalancing,” “curb maintenance,” and “special event[s],” and a model “outlining what costs will be to users.” Method of Approach is not evaluating o verall financial costs; instead, it is evaluating the ways, tactics, and solutions the proposer is suggesting to respond to the scope of work.
Pedal Movement proposed “a four -day, 32 -hour work week.” This is one potential method of staffing and was properly evaluated under Method of Approach’s previously mentioned “operational strategies.” The respective financial cost of that method of staffing was properly evaluated under Reasonableness of Cost.
Pedal Movement received a “good” rating from all four of the evaluators for Reasonableness of Cost while the intended awardee received two “good” ratings and two “excellent” ratings. The overall scores were 11% and 13% respectively. The financial costs for Pedal Movement’s proposed solution were higher than the intended awardee, further demonstrating that the evaluation was conducted properly. In summary, Pedal Movement’s proposed solution was more expensive and the Reasonableness of Cost evaluation scores accurately reflected this. Similarly, because Pedal Movement’s Method of Approach was less desirable than the intended awardee’s proposal, Pedal Movement received lower scores. The City intends to award the highest scoring proposer, as they provide the best value to the City.
BASIS FOR PROTEST:
“The City unreasonably overlooked App flow materials in Pedal Movement’s Proposal…Rater 2 nevertheless concluded that Pedal Movement’s ‘app flow screenshots [were] not prominently provided…’ That finding is inconsistent with the record.”
CITY RESPONSE:
Per RFP Section 3.2 Evaluation Criteria, “proposals shall be consistently evaluated” against the specified criteria. Per the Selection Memo dated May 7, 2026, “a selection committee comprising of three members from the Department of Public Works and one member from the Department of Technology and Innovation, evaluated the proposals based on their subject matter expertise. The proposals were evaluated in accordance with the…evaluation criteria.” Pedal Movement’s scoring in the specific evaluation criteria is as follows: Organizational Capacity and Experience 22%; Method of Approach 30%; Communications and Reporting 16%; Reasonableness of Cost 11%. Your organization’s initial score was 79%. After receiving a 10% local preference credit, your organization’s final score was increased to 89%.
There were four proposals received on March 3, 2026. Due to the limited nature of a single contract award compared to the number of proposals received, not every proposer can be successful in being awarded in a competitive process. In fact, proposers were expected to provide their best submissions and compete with other proposers for the opportunity to win the award. The competitive nature of the process necessitates selecting the highest -scoring proposer in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in Section 3.2 of the RFP. It is important to note that not being selected does not necessarily mean the submission was inadequate or of poor quality.
The City found no basis to support your claim that Pedal Movement was downgraded after having its app flow materials overlooked. The City acknowledges and agrees that the content in question is presented in Pedal Movement’s Appendix A. However, you were responsible for submitting a proposal that clearly outlines and addresses the requisite scope of work. Proposal content is the responsibility of the proposer. Evaluators can only evaluate the materials presented to them and will score the proposals accordingly.
Your protest letter claims that in the Communications and Reporting criterion, Rater 2 “concluded that Pedal Movement’s ‘app flow screenshots [were] not prominently provided,’” and that therefore “the City applied the evaluation criterion unreasonably and imposed an unstated standard regarding prominence or placement.” The City agrees with your statement that all four evaluators scored the intended awardee equally, with each one categorizing their proposal as “excellent” with an overall Communications and Reporting score of 20%. The City also agrees with your statement that you received three “good” ratings and one “excellent” rating with an overall Communications and Reporting score of 16%. There appears to be no outliers in regards to how the evaluators scored your submission. The intended awardee was the highest scorin g proposer for Communications and Reporting; Pedal Movement was second lowest.
The intended awardee had a final score of 91% after scoring higher in all categories but one. They did not receive a 10% local preference credit. Due to them receiving a higher score after evaluation, and based on the evaluation criteria specified in the R FP, your organization was not selected. The selection committee determined that the intended awardee’s proposal provided the best value to the City.
BASIS FOR PROTEST:
“The ‘Evaluation Criteria’ lacked objective standards to review proposals…Where evaluation criteria are unmoored from objective requirements, the procurement process becomes vulnerable to inconsistent scoring, unequal treatment, and favoritism – undermining the core purposes of competitive bidding…The City failed to provide evaluators with specific guidance on how to assign rankings.”
CITY RESPONSE:
Your protest letter states that “an RFP must include evaluation criteria that are clear, bounded, and objective to permit proposals to be evaluated on a common standard.” The City agrees with this statement and confirms detailed and objective evaluation criteria are specified in RFP Section 3.2 Evaluation Criteria. The full evaluation criteria are listed below:
1. Organizational Capacity & Experience – 25%
• Demonstrates successful history operating bikeshare programs with mixed vehicle fleets.
• Shows experience managing a comparable system in an environment similar to Long Beach, with fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles. • Demonstrates capacity to manage a local operations team, either with W-2 employees or qualified subcontractors.
• Provides references and case studies showcasing successful adaptive fleet deployments, equitable service implementation, and responsiveness to municipal partners.
• Organizational chart, including roles, responsibilities, and experience of designated project manager and key staff including any subcontractors. • Experience installing or partnering with installers for electrified parking hubs and expanding parking infrastructure to help meet demand.
2. Method of Approach – 40%
• Fleet size and vehicle specifications for initial deployment and plan for any phased increases there after.
• Outlines operational strategies and demonstrates the feasibility of fleet mix, scalable deployment.
• Provides parking drop zone design for multiple vehicle types and parking management options.
• Equity program plan for equitable pricing and equitable distribution for deployment.
• Community outreach plan for promoting equity programs and promoting program growth through multilingual outreach
• Demonstrates alignment with key City planning documents and initiatives, such as Elevate ‘28, the Climate Action Plan, and Vision Zero, particularly highlighting strategies for major event surge deployments. • Maintenance schedule and rebalancing plan for local operations. • Curb maintenance plan and solutions for keeping the Public Right of Way clear.
• Special Event plan for increased parking and fleet size. • Pricing model outlining what costs will be to users; include current pricing for similar geographic areas.
3. Communications & Reporting – 20%
• Plan for real-time data sharing using MDS and integration with the City’s existing digital infrastructure.
• Provides pictures of app flow and internal app messaging to customers concerning usage, geofencing, and safety features.
• Provides pictures of backend reporting site for City Staff and describes what features for data analytics will be included.
• Provides sample reporting for monthly and quarterly reporting, including ridership analytics, maintenance logs, and compliance metrics. • Provides plan for public dashboard tools and transparency features. • Plan describes approach to customer service complaint tracking, internal response times, and collaboration on course corrections.
4. Reasonableness of Cost – 15%
• Provides detailed cost and pricing structure based on The City purchasing and owning the vehicles with pricing models structured to allow phased roll out of vehicle types or infrastructure improvements.
This includes the City purchasing the vehicles, subsi dizing operations and equity programs, and will require the City to retain all program revenue paid by users.
• Demonstrates cost structure in relation to the scope of services, fleet size, service quality, alignment with performance and equity goals. • Provides cost breakdown and ensure it supports the full range of services, from fleet maintenance and staffing to technology and customer service.
• Cost breakdown reflects scaleable fleet, surge needs during major events, including the 2028 Olympics.
• Pricing models for equity programs including low-income riders, seniors, and unbanked users.
The City concurs with your statement that these identical evaluation criteria are included in the evaluation toolkit’s rubric page. The toolkit’s Column F is, as you also stated in your protest letter, optional should additional guidance be necessary for a sneeded scenarios. For this particular RFP, because the evaluation criteria were so detailed, no additional guidance was required for the evaluators to appropriately evaluate the proposals.
The City disputes your claim that “evaluators were apparently left without objective standards,” and directs you to the evaluation criteria listed above. Further, your claim that there were “arbitrary and inconsistent rankings” appears unfounded, as the Ci ty was unable to produce any data supporting this claim. In reality, the scoring was remarkably consistent amongst the four evaluators based on the transparent evaluation toolkit that was provided to you. No outliers were identified.
As previously stated, the Organizational Capacity and Experience evaluation criteria included criteria such as “demonstrates successful history operating bikeshare programs with mixed vehicle fleets, shows experience managing a comparable system in an envi ronment similar to Long Beach, with fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles, demonstrates capacity to manage a local operations team, either with W -2 employees or qualified subcontractors, provides references and case studies showcasing successful adaptive fleet deployments, equitable service implementation, and responsiveness to municipal partners, organizational chart, including roles, responsibilities, and experience of designated project manager and key staff including any subcontractors, [and] experience installing or partnering with installers for electrified parking hubs and expanding parking infrastructure to help meet demand.”
Clearly, the Organizational Capacity and Experience evaluation criterion includes copious details beyond years of experience. Taking all factors into consideration, it is not unreasonable that scoring was similar based on the totality of relevant informati on in each proposal. Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that Pedal Movement actually scored higher overall in the Organizational Capacity and Experience evaluation criterion with a 22% overall score versus a 20% score for the intended awardee and therefore benefitted from the proper application of evaluation criteria.
BASIS FOR PROTEST:
“City records indicate an inadequate review of proposers, including Drop…the record contains no evidence that the City performed basic due diligence to verify Drop’s claimed experience.”
CITY RESPONSE:
The City agrees with your statement that the RFP authorizes the City “to investigate proposer qualifications, including by contacting references, current users, and ‘any available source,’ and by seeking information ‘deemed pertinent to the evaluation process.’” Per RFP Section 5.2 Solicitation Terms and Conditions, “the City may contact the references provided; contact any Proposer to clarify any response; contact any current users of a Proposer’s services; solicit information from any available source concerning any aspect of a proposal; and seek and review any other information deemed pertinent to the evaluation process.”
The City requested five references from proposers, and the intended awardee provided five. The City can confirm that it has conducted extensive research and performed proper due diligence activities. The City has found no substantive issues that would render any proposal non-responsive or non-responsible.
BASIS FOR PROTEST:
“The RFP process lacks transparency and documentation…the City failed to provide the complete proposal materials in response to Pedal Movement’s CPRA request.
Specifically, the City withheld the cost proposals of Drop and other bidders.”
CITY RESPONSE:
After review, the City determined that it would follow its standard practice and withhold cost proposals until negotiations are completed with the intended awardee. Government Code section 7922.000 of the Public Records Act permits agencies to withhold records if the agency can demonstrate that the public interest served by not making the records public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the records.
In this case, the City has a strong interest in keeping the cost proposals confidential until negotiations are complete. The disclosure of such information would compromise the City’s leverage during negotiations and impair its ability to get the best possible deal for the City’s residents. Negotiations are complete when the parties are in agreement on all material terms, and the City can release the cost proposals to Pedal Movement at that time.
This information was previously provided to you in an email dated June 3, 2026. In good faith, the City extended the protest period to allow Pedal Movement sufficient time to complete its protest.
The Notice of Intent to Award and Selection Memo are publicly-posted documents and include scoring and pertinent information. The full evaluation toolkit is also publiclyavailable, further supporting an open, fair, transparent, competitive, and equitable procurement process.
SUMMARY:
The City’s Procurement Services Division has reviewed and considered your protest in accordance to the specified terms and conditions outlined in RFP Section 5.5 Protest Procedures. After a review of all of the information, the determination has been made that there is no basis to support the protest.
Thank you for your interest in doing business with the City. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at (562) 570 -8921 or by email at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Michelle Wilson
Purchasing Agent
CC: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Pedal Movement
DATE: July 22, 2026
SUBJECT: City of Long Beach Bikeshare RFP (PW-25-631) — Summary of Concerns
Background
Pedal Movement has worked with the City of Long Beach since 2016 and operated the bikeshare program for over eight years, which has consisted of as many as 1,400 bicycles. Pedal Movement employs 27 people, 17 of whom are Long Beach residents. In December 2025, the City issued RFP PW-25-631 for a new citywide bikeshare program: 700 pedal-assist e-bikes, scalable fleet, multilingual app, and full MDS compliance.
Four firms submitted proposals in March 2026. In May, the City notified Pedal Movement that it had been outscored by Drop Mobility, a company with no presence in Long Beach. Pedal Movement filed a formal protest on June 9. The City denied the protest on June 29.
The Scoring Gap
The final scores were close, with a margin of 2 points. Pedal Movement actually outscored Drop on Organizational Capacity & Experience (22% vs. 20%) but scored lower on Method of Approach, Communications, and Cost. The 10% Local Preference credit awarded to Pedal Movement was not enough to close the gap.
Notably, only one of the four evaluators documented any written rationale. The other three left no record of their reasoning.
Concerns About the Selected Vendor's Qualifications
The RFP requires proposers to demonstrate a "proven track record managing fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles" and "at least 3 years of demonstrated experience operating bikeshare programs." Publicly available information raises questions about whether Drop Mobility meets these thresholds:
● Fleet size: Drop Mobility's largest deployment appears to be under 800 bikes. One evaluator's own notes reflect this. Live app data as of May 2026 showed significant gaps between Drop's claimed fleet sizes and actual bikes available across its reference cities.
Attachment D
● Operating experience : Drop directly operates only two of the five systems it references — Valley
Bike
(since
August
2024)
and
Redwood
(since
October
2024),
representing
approximately
1.5 years
of
operating
experience.
Its
other
referenced
systems
—
New
Orleans,
CDPHP,
and
Kansas
City
—
are
operated
by
separate
third-party
entities.
● Operational track record : In New Orleans, widely cited as Drop's flagship market, nearly 75%
of
the
bikeshare
fleet
was
unavailable
after
three
years
due
to
theft
and
vandalism.
The
system
is
operated
day-to-day
by
a
local
nonprofit,
not
by
Drop.
The RFP defines these as mandatory requirements and states that "failure to meet a mandatory requirement
will
result
in
the
rejection
of
a
proposal
as
non-responsive"
(Section
5.1(16)).
The
City's
protest
response
reinterpreted
the
fleet-size
requirement
as
referring
to
"the
totality
of
a
company's
multiple
fleets"
—
a
reading
that
departs
from
the
RFP's
plain
language.
Evaluation
Process
Concerns
Several aspects of the evaluation process merit scrutiny: ● Scoring methodology not disclosed . The RFP published percentage weights but did not disclose
the
4-point
categorical
scoring
scale
used
by
evaluators.
A
single
evaluator
changing
one
criterion
by
one
step
on
this
scale
may
shift
the
outcome
by
2.5 points
—
more
than
the
entire
margin
of
victory.
● Limited documentation . Three of four evaluators provided no written explanation for their
scores.
The
one
evaluator
who
did
provide
justifications
left
comments
that
contain
factual
inaccuracies
—
for
example,
stating
that
Pedal
Movement
"did
not
explicitly
address
white
labeling"
when
Pedal
Movement's
cover
page
depicts
City-branded
bicycles
and
the
proposal
presents
the
system
as
"Long
Beach
Bikeshare"
throughout.
● Cost proposals withheld . The City has declined to release any proposer's cost information,
citing
a
public
interest
exemption
(Gov.
Code
§7922.000),
preventing
any
independent
assessment
of
whether
the
selected
vendor's
pricing
is
sustainable
or
defensible.
Any
cost
information
that
was
provided
by
the
City
appeared
only
in
comments
made
by
the
one
evaluator,
which,
as
referenced
previously,
also
contained
inaccuracies.
Risk
Exposure
for
the
City
Ratifying this award carries several risks worth considering: ● Severe service degradation . Drop proposes operating with 75% of the staff and spending only
45%
of
the
operating
expenses
the
locally-based
eight-year
incumbent
proposed.
Combined with questions about its operational track record, there is meaningful risk of service
gaps
and
a
significant
reduction
in
the
amount
of
skilled
jobs.
● Investment loss: Based on Drop's track record in New Orleans where, only three years after
launching,
nearly
75%
of
the
bicycles
were
unusable
due
to
theft
and
vandalism,
there
is
a
real
risk
that
the
significant
investment
the
City
makes
in
this
system
will
vaporize
with
the
bikes,
as
it
did
in
New
Orleans,
where
rebuilding
the
fleet
took
an
$11.8
million
federal
grant
by
year
three.
● 2028 Olympics readiness . Long Beach is a venue city for the 2028 Games, set to stage 11 Olympic
sporting
events.
Pedal
Movement
has
submitted
a
detailed,
costed
surge
plan
to
scale
for
the
Games.
Drop's
ability
to
scale
quickly
in
a
brand
new
market
is
untested.
● Local economic impact . Awarding the contract to an out-of-market operator would displace
27 jobs,
including
17 held
by
Long
Beach
residents.
Relying
on
a
flawed
evaluation
system
over
the
wisdom
of
experience
with
the
incumbent
operator
runs
counter
to
the
purpose
of
the
City's
Local
Preference
policy.
● Procurement integrity . The combination of a razor-thin margin, undisclosed methodology,
ambiguous
language
with
regards
to
fleet
size,
minimal
evaluator
documentation,
and
unverified
vendor
qualifications
creates
a
fact
pattern
that
could
invite
legal
challenge
and
undermine
public
confidence
in
the
procurement
process.
What
Pedal
Movement
Is
Asking
For
Based on the facts and concerns above, Pedal Movement is asking the city to disqualify Drop Mobility
and
select
Pedal
Movement
as
the
RFP’s
winning
bid,
or
alternatively,
cancel
the
RFP.
Pedal Movement has served Long Beach for a decade. It is prepared to continue doing so — and to compete
on
the
merits
in
any
process
that
is
transparent
and
fairly
administered.
PROCOPIO
12544 High Bluff Drive
Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
T. 858.720.6300
F. 619.235.0398
LAURENCE R. PHILLIPS
P. 858.720.6328
[email protected]
DEL MAR HEIGHTS
LAS VEGAS
ORANGE COUNTY
SCOTTSDALE
SAN DIEGO
SILICON VALLEY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
136493-00000001/11187913.1
September 16, 2026
VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL [[email protected]]
Mr. Tom Modica, City Manager
City of Long Beach
Department of Public Works
333 W Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
Re: RFP No. PW-25-631 (Bikeshare Program) — Notice of Intent to Seek Writ of Mandate and Demand for Corrective Action
Dear Mr. Modica:
This firm represents Pedal Movement, Inc. ("Pedal Movement") in connection with the City of Long Beach's (the "City") unlawful award of RFP No. PW -25-631 (the "RFP") to Drop Mobility ("Drop").
We write to demand that the City immediately rescind its award to Drop, and to advise the City that, absent prompt corrective action, Pedal Movement will file a petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 to set aside the award and enjoin further performance under it.
The City's award to Drop is unlawful. The City awarded a public contract to a proposer that does not meet the RFP's own mandatory minimum qualifications, and it did so by quietly rewriting those qualifications after proposals were already in hand. That is n ot a close call, and it is not a matter the City can paper over with characterizations of "intent" that appear nowhere in the RFP itself. Pedal Movement will not accept an award built on a standard invented after the fact to rescue a noncompliant bidder.
THE CITY'S OWN ADMISSIONS ESTABLISH THE VIOLATION
The RFP could not be clearer: Section 3.1 required every proposer to demonstrate a "proven track record managing fleets of at least 1,000 vehicles in urban environments comparable to Long Beach," and Section 5.1(16) provided, without qualification, that "[ f]ailure to meet a mandatory requirement will result in the rejection of a proposal as non-responsive." There is no ambiguity in that language, and the City does not contend otherwise. In its June 29, 2026 denial of Pedal Movement's
136493-00000001/11187913.1 2
protest, the City expressly concedes that the 1,000 -vehicle requirement was a mandatory minimum qualification that a proposer had to satisfy to be eligible for award.
Having admitted that the requirement was mandatory, the City then admits that it did not apply the requirement as written. Instead, the City substituted its own undisclosed standard, explaining that it interpreted the requirement to allow a proposer to agg regate the "totality of a company's multiple fleets in multiple urban environments." Nothing in the RFP said anything of the kind. The City compounds the problem by admitting, in its own words, that it "regrets its use of ambiguous language." That is not a defense. It is a confession that the City evaluated Drop's proposal against a standard the RFP never disclosed, and that no proposer – including Pedal Movement – had any opportunity to meet, contest, or even know about before submitting its proposal.
Drop did not meet the 1,000 -vehicle requirement as written. Drop's own reference materials show, at most, a project in New Orleans in which Drop "delivered" 1,000 bicycles — not a proven track record managing a fleet of that size. There is a fundamental di fference between delivering bicycles and managing the day -to-day maintenance, rebalancing, customer service, and logistics of a 1,000 - vehicle system, which is precisely the experience the RFP demanded. The City cannot rewrite the RFP after the fact to convert an unqualified proposer into a qualified one.
California law does not tolerate this conduct. A public agency cannot permit an awardee to compete under materially different requirements than those stated in the solicitation. In Konica Business Machines U.S.A., Inc. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 449, the court made clear that a procurement cannot stand where the successful proposal materially deviates from the solicitation's stated requirements. Wiechman Engineers v. California (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 741, 753, and Kajima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2000) 23 Cal.4th 305, 317, likewise require that competing proposers be treated with equal fairness – a requirement the City abandoned the moment it applied an undisclosed aggregation standard to salvage Drop's noncompliant proposal. And under Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1412-1413, a public entity's failure to apply the actual, applicable criteria to a contract award is an abuse of discretion. That is exactly what happened here.
THE CITY'S POST HOC JUSTIFICATIONS DO NOT EXCUSE THE VIOLATION The City has suggested that its interpretation was reasonable and applied consistently, and that Pedal Movement's own proposal benefited from the same interpretation. None of that matters. A public agency does not earn the right to override a mandatory qua lification simply by applying its unstated reinterpretation evenhandedly. If the City believes that neither proposer satisfied the 1,000- vehicle requirement as written, the lawful response is not to quietly abandon the requirement – It is to cancel the RFP and resolicit under criteria that actually say what the City means. The City chose instead to award a valuable public contract to a favored bidder under a standard nobody was told applied. Pedal Movement will not stand by while that award proceeds.
ADDITIONAL DEFECTS CONFIRM THE AWARD CANNOT STAND
The 1,000 -vehicle violation is dispositive on its own, but it is not the only defect in this procurement, and the City should understand the full scope of what Pedal Movement is prepared to litigate.
136493-00000001/11187913.1 3
First, the City also concedes that the RFP's separate three -year operating -experience requirement was mandatory. Drop directly operated only two of the five reference systems it cited, for less than three years, with the remainder run by third parties whil e Drop served merely as an equipment or technology vendor. The requirement demands three years "operating" bikeshare programs – not three years loosely associated with them. The City's attempt to blur that distinction does not make Drop compliant.
Second, the City ran a scoring process it kept secret from every proposer. The RFP disclosed percentage weights for each evaluation category but never disclosed that evaluators would apply an undefined four-tier "Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor" rating system, or how those ratings would be converted into the weighted scores that decided the award. In a procurement decided by a two-point margin, that undisclosed methodology was outcome-determinative: a single evaluator moving one category by one step could have erased the entire gap between Drop and Pedal Movement. Worse, three of the four evaluators left no explanation whatsoever for their scores, and the lone evaluator who did explain his or her reasoning got the facts wrong – criticizing Pedal Movement for supposedly failing to address "white labeling" when Pedal Movement's proposal depicted City -branded bicycles throughout and repeatedly presented the system as "Long Beach Bikeshare," and faulting Pedal Movement for app - flow materials that the City now admits were included in Pedal Movement's Appendix A. An award resting on an undisclosed methodology, undocumented judgment calls, and demonstrably incorrect criticism of the losing proposal cannot be squared with the fair and con sistent evaluation that Wiechman and Kajima/Ray Wilson require, or with the proper application of criteria that Monterey Mechanical demands.
Third, the City is withholding the very cost proposals it relies on to justify the award.
Reasonableness of Cost made up 15% of the evaluation, Drop outscored Pedal Movement in that category by two points, and that two-point margin is the entire difference between the two proposals.
The City cannot have it both ways: it cannot invoke Drop's supposedly lower cost as the deciding factor while refusing to let Pedal Movement see the pricing that supposedly decided it. Interested parties are entitled to a meanin gful opportunity to scrutinize a proposed public contract award. ( Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1065, 1073-1074; Great West Contractors, Inc. v. Irvine Unified School District (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1429.) The City's continued concealment of that information only reinforces the conclusion that this award cannot survive scrutiny.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
Pedal Movement is not asking the City to second -guess subjective scoring judgments, and a writ proceeding will not require a court to do so. The issue is narrow and the City has already admitted the key facts: the 1,000-vehicle requirement was mandatory, Drop did not meet it as written, and the City substituted an aggregation standard that appears nowhere in the RFP. On those admitted facts, Pedal Movement is confident a court will find that the City abused its discretion and will set aside the award.
Pedal Movement demands that the City, on or before September 25, 2026:
1. Rescind the award to Drop under RFP No. PW-25-631;
2. Confirm in writing that the City will not proceed to execute or perform any contract with Drop under the RFP pending resolution of this dispute; and 136493-00000001/11187913.1 4
3. Either: (a) reevaluate the proposals by applying the 1,000 -vehicle and three -year operating requirements exactly as written in the RFP, without any undisclosed aggregation or equivalence standard, and award the contract to Pedal Movement as the only proposer that satisfies those mandatory qualifications; (b) cancel the RFP and resolicit under clearly stated, properly disclosed criteria ; or (c) rescind the award to Drop and award the contract to Pedal Movement directly as the next -ranked, responsive, and qualified proposer, without further delay or additional cost to the City.
If the City does not provide written confirmation of the foregoing by September 25, 2026, Pedal Movement will proceed to file a petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside the award, to enjoin any further performance under it, and to recover its costs and attorneys' fees to the extent permitted by law, without further notice.
This letter is written to protect and preserve all of Pedal Movement's rights and remedies, all of which are expressly reserved. Nothing in this letter, and nothing Pedal Movement has done or omitted to do, should be construed as a waiver of any right or r emedy, all of which Pedal Movement intends to pursue in full if the City does not act.
Please direct any response to my attention.
Sincerely,
Laurence R. Phillips
LRP
Cc: City Attorney, Dawn McIntosh [[email protected]] Director of Public Works, Josh Hickman [[email protected]] Parking and Mobility Officer, Willie Walker [[email protected]]