letter on potential conflict of interest in taxi of tomorrow competition

May 3, 2011 New York City Comptroller John C. Liu Office of the Comptroller for the City of New York 1 Centre Street New York, NY 10007 Dear Comptroller Liu, In December 2009, the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission TLC issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) inviting auto manufacturers and designers to submit their best ideas for a purpose-built vehicle to serve as a New York City taxicab. Recent events have led us to believe that the TLC and a consultant involved in the project, Ricardo, Inc. may have been in violation of conflict of interest provisions in the ‘Taxi of Tomorrow’ RFP. The purpose of this letter is share with you the facts and circumstances that have led us to this conclusion, and thereby ask that you investigate whether major violations of the RFP have occurred when reviewing the final bidder determinations for awarding the ‘Taxi of Tomorrow’ contract.

The first potential conflict of interest centers on the dissemination of confidential materials relating to the project. Section 5 of the ‘Taxi of Tomorrow’ RFP states:

2. A conflict of interest will exist if, at any time before the award of a contract, respondent, or any member or employee of respondent, or any consultant or other private organization retained by or compensated by respondent, obtains confidential information about the Taxi of Tomorrow project from TLC, Ricardo, Inc., Smart Design, or Design Trust for Public Space. A respondent with a conflict of interest as defined in this paragraph may be disqualified.1

According to a recent New York Times article, “In Contest for New York’s New Taxis, Turkish Entry, the Karsan, Is Rejected,” confidential information about the ‘Taxi of Tomorrow’ was obtained from an official of the Bloomberg administration2. The article states:

1 Exhibit 1 2 “In Contest for New York’s New Taxis, Turkish Entry, the Karsan, Is Rejected,” New York Times, 5/2/11

THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE

FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK Bill de Blasio – PUBLIC ADVOCATE

MARTY MARKOWITZ BROOKLYN BOROUGH PRESIDENT

MICAH Z. KELLNER 65th ASSEMBLY DISTRICT

“[A] report prepared by an automotive consultant, Ricardo Inc., put it bluntly: While Karsan had demonstrated ‘the will and technical capability’ to build its proposed taxi, the company was ‘a new manufacturer, with a new manufacturing paradigm, not familiar with the U.S. regulatory framework, with no current sales, service or support infrastructure’ in the United States, according to the report, excerpts of which were obtained by the New York Times3.”

The New York Times obtained confidential information about the ‘Taxi of Tomorrow’ program from a City official before the awarding of the contract, which is a potentially serious breach of the conflict of interest clause of the RFP because this information is now prematurely available to the competitors and the public at large. This type of selective leak is especially damaging to the procurement process because it simultaneously creates an unfair prejudice against one competitor while gifting the other competitors with access to valuable information concerning the competition. This report was so confidential in nature that not even Karsan Automotive was made privy to its contents. Upon hearing of its release, Jan Nahum, executive director of Karsan said, “he was shocked that he had not been directly notified of the decision, and he described the premature release of the report as inappropriate…we are unaware of any such report, and the concerns reportedly raised in it has never been expressed to us4.” The City official leaked specific excerpts of the report outlining Karsan’s failings, which are clearly designed to create a prejudice against the Karsan bid. In fact, the City official speaking on anonymity to the New York Times stated that the Karsan van was rejected due to this damning report5. The second instance of a conflict of interest arises from Ricardo Inc.’s past dealings with Ford and Nissan, the other finalists in the ‘Taxi of Tomorrow’ contest. Again, Section 5 of the ‘Taxi of Tomorrow’ RFP states:

1. A conflict of interest exists if respondent, or any member or employee of respondent, or any consultant or other private organization retained by or compensated by respondent, was involved in the development or issuance of the Request for Information issued by the TLC on February 20, 2008, other than as a member of the TLC Taxi of Tomorrow Stakeholder Committee, or the development or issuance of this Request for Proposals, by work with TLC, Ricardo, Inc., Smart Design, or Design Trust for Public Space. No proposal submitted by a respondent with a conflict of interest as defined in this paragraph will be considered6.

It is therefore of great concern that both Ford and Nissan have been clients of Ricardo Inc. A press release from as recently as March 2011 shows that Ricardo Inc. was named in a select group of global suppliers for Ford’s World Excellence Award for cost

3 “In Contest for New York’s New Taxis, Turkish Entry, the Karsan, Is Rejected,” New York Times, 5/2/11 4 “In Contest for New York’s New Taxis, Turkish Entry, the Karsan, Is Rejected,” New York Times, 5/2/11 5 “In Contest for New York’s New Taxis, Turkish Entry, the Karsan, Is Rejected,” New York Times, 5/2/11 6 Exhibit 1

reduction achievement7. The attached brochures8 from Ricardo Inc.’s website display clear linkages between Nissan and Ricardo Inc. through Ricardo Inc.’s work with Renault, a company directly associated with Nissan. While Nissan and Renault are not officially merged, Renault holds a 43.4% stake in Nissan, while Nissan holds 15% of Renault shares9. Furthermore, a proposal from Ricardo Inc. from 2006 lists Ford and Nissan as part of its worldwide global client base10. The fact that Nissan and Ford have both previously retained Ricardo Inc. as a consultant raises questions about potential conflicts of interest due to past client relationships. Ricardo Inc. played an important role in the selection of the finalists for the ‘Taxi of Tomorrow,’ and these prior relationships could have slanted the selection as finalists in Nissan’s and Ford’s favor. It is for these reasons that we are requesting that the New York City Comptroller’s office investigate whether these conflicts of interest have fundamentally and irreversibly prejudiced the selection process of the ‘Taxi of Tomorrow.’ If this is determined to be the case, we also question whether it is appropriate to then certify a contract if a winner is selected for the ‘Taxi of Tomorrow.’ Sincerely,

Bill de Blasio Micah Z. Kellner Marty Markowitz Public Advocate for the City of New York Assembly Member Brooklyn Borough President Attachments: Exhibit 1: “Request for Proposals for NYC Taxi of Tomorrow,” Issued 12/17/09 Exhibit 2: Ricardo Quarterly Review. “Ricardo helps with new Renault NVH facility.” 2005. Exhibit 3: Ricardo Quarterly Review. “Hot Stuff.” 2004. Exhibit 4: Wight, Iain. Ricardo Inc. “Transmission Design the Winning Formula.” November 2006. Cc: Edna Wells Handy, Commissioner – New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services; Rose Gill Hearn, Commissioner – New York City Department of Investigation

7“Press Release: Ricardo wins gold with Ford’s World Excellence Award for cost reduction” Accessed 5/2/11 8 Exhibits 2,3 9 “Rennault- Nissan Alliance Structure.” Accessed 5/2/11 10 Exhibit 4

Exhibit 1

New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services on Behalf of the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission

Michael R. Bloomberg Mayor

Martha K. Hirst Commissioner

Edward Andersen Procurement Analyst

Request for Proposals for

NYC TAXI OF TOMORROW PIN: 85701000514 December 17, 2009

It is illegal to engage in practices that could undermine or prevent the fair award of a contract related to this solicitation. The Comptroller of the City of New York is charged with the audit of all New York City contracts. Any person who believes that there has been unfairness, favoritism or impropriety in the proposal process should inform the comptroller of the City of New York, Office of Contract Administration, One Centre Street, Room 835, New York, New York 10007; telephone number 212-669-2797.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS: PAGE # SECTION I – TIMETABLE 3 SECTION II – SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 4 SECTION III – SCOPE OF SERVICES 8 SECTION IV – FORMAT AND CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL 13 SECTION V – PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD PROCEDURES 18 SECTION VI – GENERAL INFORMATION TO RESPONDENTS 20 APPENDIX A – VEHICLE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX B – ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITIES APPENDIX C – PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE APPENDIX D – PRICE AND ECONOMIC VALUE APPENDIX E – PROJECTED VEHICLE RETIREMENT SCHEDULE ATTACHMENT A – PROPOSAL COVER LETTER ATTACHMENT B – ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDENDA ATTACHMENT C – VEHICLE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET ATTACHMENT D – MANUFACTURING CAPABILITIES AND QUALIFICATIONS WORKSHEET ATTACHMENT E – FINANCIAL CAPABILITIES WORKSHEET ATTACHMENT F – PRICE AND ECONOMIC VALUE WORKSHEET ATTACHMENT G – AFFIRMATION ATTACHMENT H – CONFLICT OF INTEREST AFFIRMATION ATTACHMENT I – PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE RSVP FORM ATTACHMENT J – DOING BUSINESS DATA FORM AUTHORIZED AGENCY CONTACT PERSON

Respondents are advised that the Authorized Agency Contact Person for all matters concerning this Request for Proposals (RFP) is: Name: Edward Andersen Title: Procurement Analyst Mailing Address: New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services 1 Centre Street, 18th floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone #: 212-669-8509 E-Mail Address: [email protected]

3

SECTION I - TIMETABLE

A. Release Date of this Request for Proposals: December 17, 2009 All questions and requests for additional information concerning this RFP should be directed to Edward Andersen, the Authorized Agency Contact Person, at:

Name: Edward Andersen Title: Procurement Analyst Mailing Address: New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services 1 Centre Street, 18th floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone #: 212-669-8509 E-Mail Address: [email protected]

All questions regarding this procurement should be submitted ONLY to the Authorized Agency Contact Person. All questions must be made in writing, and submitted by mail or e-mail. All answers to questions will be addressed in the form of Addenda to this RFP, and will be available to all prospective respondents known to have received the RFP. No questions will be accepted after January 29, 2010. All questions and answers will be shared in writing with all respondents known to have received the RFP and posted online. Questions and answers will be distributed no later than February 16, 2010.

B. Pre-Proposal Conference: Date: January 14, 2010 Time: 10:00 AM Location: 100 Gold Street, New York, NY. 8th floor Attendance by respondents is optional but strongly recommended by the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (“DCAS”) and the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (the “TLC”). Web-based conference attendance will be available to participants. Information on how to access the web conference will be posted on the DCAS and TLC websites by January 12, 2010, which can accessed through http://www.nyc.gov/tlc or http://www.nyc.gov/dcas; or by contacting the Agency Contact person on or after January 12, 2010. An addendum to this RFP will also be issued with information on how to access the web conference. Any bidder planning on attending the conference, either in person or via the web, should return the Pre-Proposal Conference RSVP Form (Attachment I) to the contact person listed in Section I no later than December 30, 2009.

C. Proposal Due Date and Time and Location: The due date and time for proposal submission is March 26, 2010 by 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time. Proposals shall be submitted to:

NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services Bid Room ATTN: Taxi of Tomorrow – PIN # 85701000514

1 Centre Street, 18th floor New York, New York 10007

4

DCAS will not accept e-mailed or faxed proposals. Proposals received at this location after the proposal due date and time are considered late and will not be accepted by DCAS, except as provided under New York City’s Procurement Policy Board (PPB) Rules. Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the instructions provided in Section IV, Format and Content of the Proposal. DCAS will consider requests made to the Authorized Agency Contact Person to extend the proposal due date and time prescribed above. However, unless DCAS issues a written addendum to this RFP that extends the proposal due date and time for all respondents, the proposal due date and time prescribed above will remain in effect. DCAS reserves the right to cancel the RFP at any time if it is determined to be in the best interests of the City of New York (the “City”). Interviews DCAS anticipates that interviews, if necessary, will be scheduled between the weeks of May 17th-May 28th, 2010. Respondents should plan to be available during that time to interview in person in New York City (NYC). Respondents who are invited for interviews will be contacted by the TLC to schedule an interview. DCAS reserves the right to change interview dates subsequent to the proposal due date if doing so would be in the City’s best interests.

D. Anticipated Contract Start Date: October 2010

SECTION II - SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS A. Purpose of RFP DCAS is releasing this RFP on behalf of the TLC. “TLC” will be used throughout the remainder of this document. The TLC is undertaking a major initiative, herein referred to as the Taxi of Tomorrow Project. New York City seeks upgrades to the existing NYC taxi fleet and is proactively exploring vehicle possibilities that more appropriately reflect the needs of its diverse stakeholders – passengers, drivers, owners and NYC residents. As part of this Project, the TLC is seeking a highly qualified Original Equipment Manufacturer (“OEM”), or a team that includes an OEM, to provide an innovative vehicle developed or modified for use in a highly visible taxi market located within one of the paramount marketing centers of the world. This RFP seeks to bring a new taxi to the streets of New York City. Among the qualities envisioned for the Taxi of Tomorrow are:

• Highest safety standards • Superior passenger experience • Superior driver comfort and amenities • Appropriate purchase price and on-going maintenance and repair costs • Sustainability (minimized environmental impact throughout the vehicle’s life cycle) • Minimal physical footprint (with more useable interior room) • Universal accessibility for all users with a goal of meeting ADA guidelines (wheelchair accessible) • Iconic design that will identify the new taxi with New York City

5

The successful respondent will be the exclusive provider of NYC taxis i.e., the successful respondent will exclusively sell vehicles into the NYC taxi market for a period of ten years. TLC anticipates that the successful respondent will sell an average of approximately 220 vehicles per month (approximately 2,650 per year) for ten years. The exact number of vehicles purchased each month will be determined by actual orders and is not guaranteed by the TLC. The performance, efficiency, and safety features of a typical passenger car are expected to improve significantly over the next ten years; the vehicle offered under this contract will be expected to improve at a similar, if not better, rate. After ten years of selling vehicles into the market, the successful respondent must continue to provide agreed upon warranty, service, and parts support for vehicles previously sold. A 150,000 mile powertrain warranty must be provided as a minimum requirement. Service and parts support must continue to be provided for five years after the conclusion of the ten year selling period.

1. Background

The TLC is responsible for licensing and regulating vehicles for hire in NYC: taxis, liveries, black cars, limousines, paratransit vehicles, and commuter vans. Since the TLC’s creation in 1971, the industries regulated by the TLC have grown to include more vehicles and drivers, and they provide more rides to the public than ever before – moving over 1.2 million New Yorkers and visitors each day. TLC-regulated travel is the third largest source of public transportation in New York, after the subway and buses. On an annual basis, TLC-regulated vehicles provide transportation to 400 million people and generate over $4 billion in private revenue.

In New York City, taxis (also known as yellow cabs) are for-hire vehicles that are available only for street hail (a passenger cannot arrange for a taxi ride on the phone). The number of taxis is strictly controlled, and there are currently 13,237. At this time, the Stretch Ford Crown Victoria represents 67% (or approximately 8,900 vehicles) of the fleet. The remainder of the taxi fleet is made up of hybrids, minivans, and wheelchair accessible vehicles as specified in the TLC rules. None of the vehicles currently approved as taxis were designed by OEMs as taxis; rather they have all been outfitted (“hacked up”) by third party upfitters, garages and meter shops to conform to TLC’s taxicab specifications. As a reference, current TLC rules and local laws that govern the taxi industry can be found at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/rules/rules.shtml.

In the last several years, the TLC has taken interim steps to advance some of the goals of the Taxi of Tomorrow, specifically in the areas of sustainability and accessibility. In 2007, Mayor Bloomberg announced PlaNYC, a long-term sustainability plan to reduce greenhouse gases while accommodating an additional one million residents by 2030. PlaNYC calls for reducing emissions from the city’s taxis, and the City has actively tried to pursue this initiative. Currently, 22% of the city’s taxis are hybrid vehicles.

At the same time, TLC has recognized that its taxi fleet is not universally accessible, and that it is important to enhance mobility. Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines do not provide standards for an accessible taxi, and OEMs have not produced one. TLC determined that accessible taxis would need to meet the ADA’s small bus standards to accommodate an appropriate range of wheelchair users. Ultimately, TLC approved upfitted wheelchair accessible taxis for service. There are now 240 accessible taxis on the road. These efforts in sustainability and accessibility are good early efforts, but they do not approach the desired integrated goals the City seeks through the Taxi of Tomorrow project.

6

Prior to releasing a Request for Information (RFI) on February 20, 2008, the TLC convened a Taxi of Tomorrow Stakeholder Committee. Respondents interested in obtaining background presentations, materials, and responses to the RFI reviewed by the Stakeholder Committee may contact the Agency Contact Person listed in Section I.

2. NYC Taxi Market Overview New York City Taxi License: The license to own and operate a taxi in New York City (as opposed to the license to drive a taxi) is called a medallion. There are currently 13,237 taxi medallions. The NYC Taxi of Tomorrow will only be made available to TLC licensees. The TLC retains the right to adjust the number of medallions during the duration of the Taxi of Tomorrow contract, which would affect the number of vehicles needed. The City does, from time to time, increase the number of medallions. The first increase since 1937 was in 1996, and since then, 1,650 medallions have been added to the fleet. Taxi Inspections: The TLC inspects all taxis every 4 months. This inspection includes mechanical, electrical, and emission compliance as well as internal and external appearance checks. Taxi Mileage and Retirement: A typical taxi driven for two 12-hour shifts per day will accumulate 70,000 miles per year of service. A fleet-owned taxi double shift (24 hours) operated by multiple drivers must be retired after 36 months in service. An individually owned taxi must be retired after 60 months. To promote the use of hybrid and ADA compliant fleet-owned vehicles, TLC extended the retirement cycle of these vehicles an additional 12 to 24 months. Approximately 2,650 vehicles are replaced with new vehicles each year, with a monthly average of about 220. A chart of projected new vehicle retirements by month and year is included as Appendix E. Taxi Duty Cycle: While the typical NYC taxi fleet garage is in Long Island City, Queens, taxis spend most of their service time in Manhattan. With the exception of trips to the three airports on major highways, the vehicles spend most of their time on city streets. In fact, trips to and from the airport only account for roughly 5% of all taxi trips. The average speed for a NYC taxi while cruising for a fare is about 7 miles per hour, and it rises to 15 miles per hour once a passenger is on board. The average paid trip length is 2.7 miles, and the average distance between fares is 2.9 miles. Research also suggests that taxis spend roughly 40% of their time stopped at red lights or standing still. This duty cycle results in increased use of throttle pedal operations, gear shifts and launch/brake events, as well as increased operation of rear doors and trunk. The average taxi picks up about 30 fares in a 12-hour shift; each of these will result in at least one of the rear doors being opened and closed twice. Road surfaces in Manhattan qualify for the most part as ‘paved road’ when put into the context of a typical vehicle durability cycle. It should be noted, however, that while paved, there are significant impact-type disturbances from sub-surface construction, potholes and drain covers that are more prevalent than in other urban settings. B. Anticipated Contract Term It is anticipated that the term of the contract awarded from this RFP will begin in October 2010 after TLC issues the Notice to Proceed. The contract term includes three phases: 1) the period during which the vehicle is under development, which will be a maximum of four years; 2) the ten year period during which the successful respondent will sell vehicles into the NYC taxi market; and 3) a period of five years, beginning from the conclusion of the ten year selling period, of providing agreed upon service and parts support for vehicles previously sold. Each of these phases is described in further detail below. Phase 1, Vehicle Development: The TLC recognizes that it may take a manufacturer several years to develop and manufacture the Taxi of Tomorrow and that the vehicles may not be available immediately when the

7

contract begins. The TLC expects the first month’s supply of vehicles to be available for service on or before October 31st, 2013, or three years after the Notice to Proceed. TLC will not consider proposals where vehicles are introduced later than October 31st, 2014, or more than four years after the Notice to Proceed. Phase 2, Vehicle Sales: The intent of the contract is to enable the successful respondent to exclusively sell vehicles into the NYC taxi market for a period of ten years. The ten year period begins from the first month that vehicles are sold into the NYC taxi market, provided it is within the timeframe outlined above. The ten year period begins within four years after the Notice to Proceed. Phase 3, Vehicle Support: After the ten year selling period concludes, the successful respondent must provide agreed upon service and parts support for five years for vehicles previously sold. A 150,000 mile powertrain warranty must be provided as a minimum requirement. Therefore, the contract term can be for a period of up to 19 years, but it could be shorter depending on when the first vehicles will be sold into service. For example, if the contract begins in October 2010, and the manufacturer begins selling vehicles in October 2013, the contract term will be for eighteen years (three years of vehicle development / manufacture, ten years of selling vehicles, and five years of agreed upon service and parts support). At some point during the term of this contract, the TLC will decide how vehicles will be provided for taxi service after the ten year sales period of this contract ends. The next generation of vehicles will be phased-in to taxi service during the post-sales vehicle support period of this contract. The Notice to Proceed is contingent upon the TLC’s adoption of rulemaking mandating the Taxi of Tomorrow vendor as the only authorized provider of taxi vehicles. TLC anticipates that rulemaking would commence soon after a respondent is selected and contract negotiations begin. The contract award will not take place until the Commission has adopted rules mandating the Taxi of Tomorrow. Respondents’ proposals, including both the technical proposal and the price proposal, are to be binding upon respondent for up to sixteen months from the date of submission. C. Anticipated Payment Structure It is anticipated that the payment structure for the contract awarded from this RFP will have no cost to the City. The vehicles would be offered by the Contractor directly to TLC licensees and purchased directly by TLC licensees at the rates negotiated in the contract. Liquidated damages payable to the City or other parties as directed by the City for the Contractor’s failure to meet agreed upon goals and milestones will be specified in the contract.

8

SECTION III - SCOPE OF SERVICES A. TLC Goals and Objectives for this RFP The goal for this RFP is to bring a new taxi to the streets of New York that embodies the qualities described in Section II A, Purpose of RFP, and meets all the minimum requirements, found in Appendix A, Vehicle Technical Specifications, that the TLC believes all modern taxis must possess. A summary table of the minimum requirements is shown on page 2 of Appendix A. Vehicles presented for the Taxi of Tomorrow must meet all minimum requirements to be considered responsive to this RFP. Minimum requirements apply to all vehicles offered over the term of the contract. Failure to meet any of the minimum requirements will render the proposal non-responsive. The successful respondent will be the exclusive provider of NYC taxis, i.e., the successful respondent will exclusively sell vehicles into the NYC taxi market for a period of ten years. At some point during the term of this contract, the TLC will decide how vehicles will be provided for taxi service after the ten year sales period of this contract ends. The next generation of vehicles will be phased-in to taxi service during the post-sales vehicle support period of this contract. The TLC expects that the vehicle will evolve over the ten year period through significant, as well as minor, redesign and modification based on stakeholder input and advancements in automotive technology. These improvements will ensure the vehicle provided at the end of the ten year period is a much improved taxi to that provided at the beginning. The TLC expects the first month’s supply of vehicles to be available for service on or before October 31st, 2013, or three years after the Notice to Proceed. TLC will not consider responses where vehicles are introduced later than October 31st, 2014, or more than four years after the Notice to Proceed. B. TLC Assumptions Regarding Contractor Approach The TLC’s assumptions regarding which approach will most likely achieve its goals and objectives are outlined below.

1. Vehicle Technical Specifications Vehicles presented for the Taxi of Tomorrow must meet all minimum requirements to be considered responsive to this RFP. Minimum requirements apply to all vehicles offered over the term of the contract. Failure to meet any of the minimum requirements will render the proposal non-responsive. The minimum requirements include compliance with all relevant Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with taxi content fitted; a front, rear, side, and rollover US New Car Assessment Program rating of three stars or higher with taxi content fitted based on the 2011 test protocol; and an “A” average Insurance Institute of Highway Safety rating for front offset, rear crash / head restraint, side and roof crush with taxi content fitted. The intent of the Taxi of Tomorrow program is to move towards a single vehicle fleet, and respondents who are able to offer a single vehicle fleet will be given greater consideration, and respondents who are able to offer a single vehicle fleet sooner will be given greater consideration. If vehicles offered are not fully accessible as defined by the TLC rules, it is a minimum requirement that additional vehicles be provided to accommodate the 231 accessible medallions currently in circulation. In addition, if vehicles offered are not hybrid-electric or fueled by compressed natural gas, it is a minimum requirement that additional vehicles be provided to accommodate the 273 “alternative fuel” medallions currently in circulation. A summary table that lists all the minimum requirements can be found on page 2 in Appendix A, Vehicle Technical Specifications.

9

In addition to minimum requirements, vehicles will be rated against a number of criteria, including safety, taxi content (more detail provided below), driver and passenger comfort, accessibility, sustainability, vehicle performance, and engagement with stakeholders to agreed upon economic value and final specifications for the vehicle design. Further discussion of these criteria can be found in Appendix A, Vehicle Technical Specifications.

Taxi Content Currently, NYC taxis are fitted with a variety of specific equipment mandated by the TLC. This mandated equipment reflects the safety and customer service goals and policies of the TLC Commission. Although the current equipment is mandated for all taxis, proposals for the Taxi of Tomorrow may alter or improve on such equipment provided that the overall goals of its use are captured. Any proposed changes will need to be approved by the TLC Commission. The TLC expects to revise its existing regulations prescribing specific vehicle equipment and standards as part of the Taxi of Tomorrow project. The TLC is open to specific revisions that might be required to incorporate alternate equipment and standards proposed by the successful respondent that would ultimately achieve a better taxi without sacrificing or lowering the overall safety and customer service goals the existing regulations are designed to achieve. Respondents should be aware that TLC regulations may be changed only by majority vote of the TLC’s Commissioners. If the TLC opts to retain an existing regulation that would prohibit a particular element of the proposal, the successful respondent must work with the TLC to achieve a solution that complies with TLC regulations. With the exception of some features that have been made available as a “taxi package” from manufacturers, the modifications or ‘hack-up’ to conform to TLC regulations is currently carried out by third party companies and meter shops licensed by the TLC. The TLC would like to integrate these separate taxi features into the design of the car. The following paragraphs describe the mandated equipment currently in place to meet the safety and customer service goals of the TLC Commission. Each item is accompanied by a description of the equipment’s purpose. Although the current equipment is mandated for all taxis, proposals for the Taxi of Tomorrow may alter or improve on such equipment provided that the overall goals of its use are captured and the proposed changes are approved by the TLC Commission External communication package: The goal of an external communication package is to dynamically convey availability and destination of the car to potential passengers, demonstrate movements and behavior of the taxi to other vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, and include external markings to designate it as an officially licensed taxi. This package would also help facilitate new uses envisioned for taxis, such as the Group Rides and Ridesharing pilot programs, by communicating destination and direction of travel. Several pieces of mandated equipment currently accomplish this goal:

• A roof light, controlled by the taximeter, indicates taxi availability and demonstrates potential taxi activity such as turn signals and passenger pick up / drop off.

• A medallion, secured through a mounting hole on the vehicle’s hood, indicates that the taxi is licensed. In addition, a distinct shade of exterior yellow paint, decals with medallion numbers, fare information and external TLC graphics also offer consistent signage and provide visible and easily recognizable markings. The vehicle must be painted yellow, but the TLC is open to altering the shade of yellow that is currently used.

• A trouble light, mounted on the front and rear of the vehicle and controlled by a concealed driver-operated switch, is used to communicate personal safety issues to law enforcement without attracting the attention of the passenger.

10

In developing an integrated communication package that meets the goals outlined above, respondents may wish to consider a rooftop unit that can also be used to display advertising or propose an alternative solution to advertising. Advertising space may be made available on taxis as an additional revenue stream for owners. Currently, the only form of approved exterior advertising is through rooftop units. Current rooftop units are usually backlit, mounted on the roof of the vehicle, and tend to be poorly matched to the roof plane and the vehicle style. TLC is interested in proposals that present a more integrated approach, and respondents may wish to consider innovative forms of advertising such as location-specific electronic signage. TLC does not allow “wrapping” an advertisement around a taxi.

More information on TLC’s Group Rides and Ridesharing pilot programs is available on its Web site: www.nyc.gov/tlc. Driver and Passenger Safety System: The goal of this system is to provide security that does not interfere with existing secondary safety systems and positively contributes to the overall safety of the driver and passengers. Currently, this is accomplished in two ways, depending on how the taxi is owned and operated:

• For taxis owned by fleets or agents, a mandatory partition offers driver protection with a clear upper section, operable access window, driver identification panel, and cash transfer mechanism.

• Individually owned and operated taxis can elect to fit the vehicle with both a security camera with tamper-proof recording capability, interfaced to the vehicle for automated operation, as well as an emergency cell phone connection, instead of the partition.

In the past, the partition has generated considerable debate as to its benefits and drawbacks. While it has proved to be effective in protecting drivers, drivers report that it impairs communication between the driver and passenger and reduces tips. TLC is interested in options that would improve driver safety while maintaining interior space, driver comfort and driver-passenger communications, and will consider modifications and alternatives to partitions and cameras provided the new systems provide equivalent or improved levels of protection and deterrence to the systems currently offered. Please note that existing TLC regulations require most taxis to have partitions. Therefore, if the successful respondent proposes a solution that does not include a partition, it is possible that the TLC Commissioners may not vote to alter existing regulations to permit the respondent’s proposed solution. In that event, the successful respondent must work under the direction of the TLC to provide an acceptable solution. Non-permeable upholstery and floor covering: The goal of non-permeable upholstery and floor covering is to have a surface that will be easy to maintain by owners and drivers and kept clean for passengers. This is currently accomplished through mandatory vinyl covering. TLC is seeking more durable and comfortable materials for the interior of the taxi. A mechanism to track fares that is easily visible to all passengers and easily used by driver: The fare box (known as the taximeter) must meet National Institute of Standards and Technology (www.nist.gov) and NY State Department of Agriculture (http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us) standards and must include security features that minimize the possibility of tampering that could result in customer overcharges. The goal is to clearly and accurately display fare information to the passenger and allow for easy use by the driver. The current equipment that accomplishes this function is the taximeter. A list of licensed taximeter shops can be found on TLC’s Web site at http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/excel/current_taxicab_metershops.xls. TLC is interested in the best way to integrate the taximeter into the overall design of the vehicle. It should not: interfere with visual or tactile contact with any of the other vehicle controls, limit the effectiveness or operation

11

of secondary restraint systems, or obstruct access to or airflow from air registers. The meter or fare box controls should be accessible to the driver without removing his/her safety belt. It should also be clearly visible to the passengers. Receipts should be available to the passengers from his/her seated location, which is currently accomplished by the driver passing receipts through the window in the partition.

Media, payment and location technology package: The goal of this package is to provide information and entertainment to the passenger, allow for automated trip records for the driver, and facilitate electronic payment, typically with a credit card. At present, this includes a passenger screen that is equipped with a Global Positioning System driven map that displays the path traveled by the taxi and a credit card reader. This technology is currently installed and maintained by three companies approved by TLC, but their system components are not interchangeable. The system also provides a driver monitor in the front of the car and targeted advertising, news feeds, public service announcements, and other TLC information for the passenger. The passenger display is typically integrated into the partition. The pre-recorded media content is owned and delivered by communications companies in partnership with the hardware provider. In the future, it is possible that this type of media, payment and location technology package could be designed by the manufacturer and built into the vehicle, allowing for interchangeable system components among vehicles.

Communication of Driver and Vehicle Licensure: The goal is to ensure that passengers can easily identify that their drivers and vehicles are currently licensed by the TLC. A TLC vehicle ID and TLC driver's license must be visible to the passenger from the back seat. This is currently accomplished through the driver license holder. As a reference, current TLC rules and local laws that govern the taxi industry can be found at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/rules/rules.shtml.

2. Expected Number of Vehicles Based upon recent vehicle replacement schedules, a respondent is expected to produce approximately 2,650 vehicles every year, delivering an average of 220 vehicles per month to the NYC taxi industry. The exact number of vehicles purchased each month will be determined by actual orders and is not guaranteed by the TLC. To assist in planning, Appendix E supplies a chart of projected vehicle retirements. The TLC retains the right to adjust the number of medallions during the Taxi of Tomorrow contract, which may change the number of vehicles needed.

3. Iconic Design The yellow medallion taxi is an iconic symbol of New York City. The TLC expects the respondent to propose an iconic design that will associate the new taxi with New York City. Respondents are encouraged to think about the interior of the vehicle as well as its exterior representation. While the respondent’s initial vision of the Taxi of Tomorrow and its evolution are important, respondents will be expected to demonstrate their ability to work with stakeholders to achieve consensus on the taxi’s iconic design and content. The TLC expects respondents to submit a plan that demonstrates how stakeholder involvement will be utilized to continuously improve the vehicle based upon feedback. It is anticipated that TLC will work closely with the winning bidder to identify and gain feedback of stakeholders. The NYC Taxi of Tomorrow will only be made available to TLC licensees. However, the successful respondent may sell the vehicle in other markets, provided that the iconic styling elements that identify the taxi with New York City remain unique to the NYC Taxi of Tomorrow. For example, iconic styling elements may

12

include exterior signage, but not an integrated partition. The iconic styling elements unique to New York City are subject to final negotiation in the contract.

4. The Evolution of the Vehicle The performance, efficiency, and safety features of a typical passenger car are expected to improve significantly over the next ten years; the vehicle offered under this contract will be expected to improve at a similar, if not better, rate. Taxi-specific content and its integration with the vehicle and the driver / passengers is also expected to provide increased levels of safety and functionality over time, particularly if the standards achieved for early vehicles fall short of the recommended targets. Respondents will be rated on their ability to meet TLC targets and goals as set out in this RFP; however future advances in vehicle technology, safety, and efficiency may result in agreed upon changes to these targets over time. In responding to the RFP, the respondent should describe (via the proposal package) the vehicle and how it will be brought to market for each of the ten years that it will be the exclusive taxi provider. A score will be assigned for the vehicle or vehicles provided for each year. The overall score for the vehicle is the sum of the scores awarded for each of the ten years. The intent of the Taxi of Tomorrow program is to move towards a single vehicle fleet. Respondents who are able to offer a single vehicle fleet sooner will be given greater consideration. The TLC recognizes that it may take manufacturers several years to develop and manufacture the Taxi of Tomorrow and expects the first month’s supply of vehicles to be available for service on or before October 31st 2013, or three years after the contract is signed. Respondents who are able to introduce the vehicle earlier will be given greater consideration. The TLC will not consider proposals where vehicles are introduced later than October 31st 2014, or four years after the contract is signed.

5. Marketing Opportunities to Offset Costs TLC seeks to obtain the best vehicle that best meets the standards and goals outlined in this document at a reasonable competitive price. To this end, TLC fully expects the respondents of this solicitation to consider creative strategies to offset costs associated with bringing the Taxi of Tomorrow to NYC. Such strategies may include sponsorships, marketing, or advertising partnerships. Currently, the only form of advertising approved for the exterior of the vehicle is through a rooftop unit; “wrapping” the vehicle with advertisements is not permitted. TLC assumes these strategies will be considered when developing proposals, especially their effect on reducing cost to the taxi industry, for this solicitation.

6. Direct and Indirect Benefit to the City Respondents are encouraged to propose ways in which the City may benefit directly through a strategic partnership. As the exclusive taxi provider in NYC, the successful respondent will be able to leverage the iconic value of the city and one of its most visible forms of transportation to create unique marketing opportunities. TLC is interested to learn what type of partnership is of interest and how such a partnership will benefit the City directly. Examples of direct benefits to the City may include: the use of the New York City taxi as part of national / international marketing campaigns, building out infrastructure to support service or new vehicle technologies (eg. electric charging stations, taxi stands), supplying innovative concept vehicles to the City, providing real-time traffic data gathered from taxis traveling throughout the city, or other types of partnerships.

13

7. Price Proposal The TLC is interested in more than the sticker price of the new taxi. The price proposal is to be calculated as the average cost to the taxi industry to purchase and operate the vehicles as taxis. These costs to the industry include the price of the vehicle, the anticipated lifetime repair and parts replacement costs, maintenance costs, and fuel cost over a five year period. The TLC considers this to be the total lifecycle cost. The price proposal form of the RFP is a worksheet (Attachment F) to be used to calculate a number representing the total life cycle cost. The economic equation must satisfy riders, manufacturers, corporate and individual owners, drivers, agents, and the City. TLC is able to influence certain expenses and thus income of licensed stakeholders, and it should be assumed that TLC will make necessary changes to the current rules to ensure all stakeholders are economically held as harmless as possible or benefit fairly when Taxi of Tomorrow is the required vehicle.

SECTION IV - FORMAT AND CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL Instructions: Respondents should provide all information required in the format below. Respondents should submit one original set and ten paper copies of the proposal. Facsimile responses will not be accepted. Signatures are required on the cover letter. Respondents should provide all information requested in the format prescribed below. The proposal should be typed on both sides of 8 ½" X 11” paper. The City of New York requests that all proposals be submitted on paper with no less than 30% postconsumer material content, i.e., the minimum recovered fiber content level for reprographic papers recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (for any changes to that standard please consult: http://www.epa.gov/cpg/products/printing.htm). All pages should be numbered. The proposal will be evaluated on the basis of its content, not length. Failure to comply with any of these instructions will not make the proposal non-responsive. To facilitate the evaluation process, it is recommended, but not required, that respondents also submit a total of two CD-ROMs; one of the CD-ROMs should contain an electronic copy of the Technical Proposal, and one of the CD-ROMs should contain an electronic copy of the Price Proposal. If submitted, these electronic copies must be identical to the original hardcopy proposals. The narratives should be in PDF format. In the interest of time and accuracy, the TLC prefers that respondents submit the worksheets in Microsoft Excel format. Respondents who wish to obtain a copy of the worksheets in Microsoft Excel may do so by downloading them from the DCAS or TLC website, http://www.nyc.gov/dcas or http://www.nyc.gov/tlc or contacting the Agency contact person. Each CD-ROM should be clearly labeled with the name of the respondent, name of the RFP, PIN number, and whether the CD-ROM contains a Technical or Price Proposal. Respondents should submit one sealed envelope that contains the original and ten paper copies of the Technical Proposal, as well as the CD-ROM containing the Technical Proposal. The original Technical Proposal should clearly be labeled “ORIGINAL” on the cover. In a separate sealed envelope, respondents should include the original and ten paper copies of the Price Proposal, as well as the CD-ROM containing the Price Proposal. The original Price Proposal should be clearly labeled “ORIGINAL” on the cover. NOTE: The hardcopy proposal marked “ORIGINAL” is the official submission. The hardcopy must include the full response, including all worksheets and attachments. The City is not responsible for errors on the CD-ROM. The official copy is the hardcopy. Clearly label each envelope with the respondent’s name, name of the RFP, PIN Number, and whether the envelope contains the technical or price proposal. The City is subject to the New York State Freedom of Information Law, which governs the process for the public disclosure of certain records maintained by DCAS and TLC. (See Public Officers Law, Sections 87 and

14

89.) Individuals or firms that submit proposals to DCAS and TLC may request that DCAS and TLC except all or part of such a proposal from public disclosure, on the grounds that the proposal contains trade secrets, proprietary information, or that the information, if disclosed, would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the individual or firm submitting the information. Such exception may extend to information contained in the request itself, if public disclosure would defeat the purpose for which the exception is sought. The request for such an exception must be in writing and state, in detail, the specific reasons for the requested exception. It must also specify the proposal or portions thereof for which the exception is requested. Respondents should give specific attention to the identification of those portions of their proposals that they deem to be confidential, proprietary information, or trade secrets, and provide any justification as to why such materials, upon request, should not be disclosed by DCAS or the TLC. Such information must be clearly identified and easily separable from the non-confidential sections of the proposals. A. Proposal Format

1. Proposal Cover Letter The proposal cover letter form (Attachment A) transmits the Respondent’s proposal package to the TLC. It should be completed, signed and dated by an authorized representative of the Respondent and clearly indicate the ongoing contact person. The names, addresses, and contact information for all sub-contractors related to this project should also be included.

2. Acknowledgment of Addenda

The Acknowledgment of Addenda form (Attachment B) serves as the respondent’s acknowledgment of the receipt of addenda to this RFP, which may have been issued by the TLC prior to the Proposal Due Date and Time, as set forth in Section I (D), above. The respondent should complete this form as instructed on the form.

3. Technical Proposal The Technical Proposal consists of an executive summary and three sections: (a) proposed approach, including vehicle technical specifications, iconic design, and direct / indirect benefit to the City, (b) organizational capability, including both manufacturing and financial capabilities, and (c) experience. The executive summary should highlight the main concepts and features included in the proposed vehicle and include an overview of the company / consortium responding to the RFP. For each section, respondents should consult the appropriate appendices for guidance on specific questions that need to be answered. For the proposed approach, Appendix A outlines specific questions that should be addressed for vehicle technical specifications. For organizational capabilities, refer to Appendix B. Appendix C addresses questions regarding previous experience. Respondents should then compose a supporting narrative, and they must complete the corresponding worksheets (Attachments C-E). Respondents who wish to download the worksheets in Microsoft Excel may do so by contacting the Agency contact person or downloading them from the DCAS or TLC websites, http://www.nyc.gov/dcas or http://www.nyc.gov/tlc. Respondents must complete and submit the unmodified attached worksheets (Attachments C, D, E). Respondents who fail to submit any of these required worksheets may be considered non-responsive.

a. Proposed Approach The proposed approach should cover the vehicle technical specifications, iconic design, and direct / indirect benefits to the City. Appendix A outlines the minimum requirements for the Taxi of Tomorrow and details specific questions that need to be addressed for the vehicle being offered for each of the ten years. Vehicles presented for the Taxi of

15

Tomorrow must meet all minimum requirements to be considered responsive to this RFP. Minimum requirements apply to all vehicles offered over the term of the contract. Failure to meet any of the minimum requirements will render the proposal non-responsive. A summary table that lists these minimum requirements can be found on page 2 in Appendix A, Vehicle Technical Specifications. For each year that a vehicle is offered, respondents must complete the attached worksheet (Attachment C). If respondents propose multiple vehicles in the same year (i.e. to meet requirements for Clean Air or Accessible medallions), a worksheet must be completed for each vehicle. If there are no changes from one model year to the next, the same sheet and answers may be used. In the response package, respondents should not only describe the features included in the vehicle, but they should also demonstrate their capability to design, develop, and validate the features. Respondents should address how soon the vehicle and desired features are introduced to the market and their approach to ensuring the vehicles will be delivered on time. Appendix A includes information on TLC targets and specific questions to be answered in the response for the following topics:

• Safety (FMVSS, NCAP, IIHS ratings, pedestrian protection) • Integration and validation of taxi content (driver safety system, taximeter, technology package, driver /

passenger communication system) • Ergonomics (driver, passenger, trunk volume, access) • HVAC system (driver, passenger) • Noise and vehicle harshness (driver, passenger) • Ride comfort (driver, passenger) • Accessibility (wheelchair users, deaf and/or hard-of-hearing riders, blind and/or low vision riders,

limited mobility riders) • Sustainability (fuel economy and emissions performance) • Performance (acceleration, vehicle operating range, drivability, service)

For iconic design, TLC is interested in respondents’ vision for the Taxi of Tomorrow as well as the process for conducting stakeholder outreach and feedback. Respondents should provide images of the initial vision for the vehicle and its evolution, including images of the physical exterior and interior. Respondents should also describe their approach and timeline for working with stakeholders and gathering public feedback throughout the contract. TLC is interested in respondents’ ability to incorporate feedback from stakeholders into the taxi’s design, as well as the types of elements that can be adjusted or redesigned as a result of stakeholder feedback. Respondents should specify which elements of the vehicle are fixed and cannot be changed for safety or structural reasons. Respondents should supply a narrative including interior and exterior styling studies showing how they propose to integrate TLC taxi specific content and identifying the NYC-specific elements that would not be provided for other taxi markets. Respondents are encouraged to propose ways in which the City may benefit directly or indirectly through a strategic partnership. As the exclusive taxi provider in New York City, the successful respondent will be able to leverage the iconic value of the city and one of its most visible forms of transportation to create unique marketing opportunities. Respondents should describe what type of partnership is of interest and how such a partnership will benefit the City directly or indirectly.

b. Organizational Capabilities Appendix B details the questions regarding qualifications of companies or partnerships participating in this proposal. Given the nature of the engineering integration and length of the contract, TLC is seeking responders who can demonstrate current capability in the following areas:

• Styling • Product design • Development and testing

16

• Parts procurement • Quality control • Manufacturing • Vehicle compliance and certification • After-sales parts, service and warranty support

Respondents should complete a narrative answering the questions posed in Appendix B, and they must complete the attached worksheet (Attachment D). The Appendix also covers questions regarding respondents’ financial capabilities to assess whether they can meet the financial obligations of the Taxi of Tomorrow program. Respondents are asked to present the financial portion of the project proposal in the form of a business plan that covers the entire contract term. Questions are structured around financial projections. Respondents should provide responses in a narrative, and they must complete the attached worksheet (Attachment E). c. Experience TLC is seeking respondents who can demonstrate experience and previous capability in the following areas:

• Styling • Product design • Development and testing • Parts procurement • Quality control • Manufacturing • Vehicle compliance and certification • After-sales parts, service and warranty support

Respondents should complete a narrative answering the questions posed in Appendix C. The attached worksheet (Attachment D) must be completed. TLC is seeking respondents who can demonstrate a satisfactory financial history. Responses should be provided in a narrative. The attached worksheet (Attachment E) must be completed. In addition, respondents should provide resumes of the key personnel involved in both the design and outreach teams, as well as examples of previous design processes for completed projects.

4. Price Proposal Appendix D provides details for calculating the economic value of the vehicle and submitting the price proposal. The price proposal is to be calculated as the average cost to the taxi industry to purchase and operate the vehicles as taxis. These costs to the industry include the price of the vehicle, the anticipated lifetime repair and parts replacement costs, maintenance costs, and fuel cost over a five year period. The TLC considers this to be the total lifecycle cost. The price proposal form of the RFP is a worksheet (Attachment F) to be used by respondent to reach a number representing the total life cycle cost. If multiple vehicles are offered over the ten year period, respondents should completely fill out a worksheet for each vehicle offered each year. If respondents propose multiple vehicles in the same year (i.e. to meet requirements for Clean Air or Accessible medallions), a worksheet must be completed for each vehicle that is provided. Other sponsorships / partnerhips should be factored into the price proposal. Respondents must complete and submit the unmodified attached worksheet (Attachment F). Respondents who fail to submit this required worksheet may be considered non-responsive.

17

5. Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest shall be defined as either of the following: 1. A conflict of interest exists if respondent, or any member or employee of respondent, or any consultant or other private organization retained by or compensated by respondent, was involved in the development or issuance of the Request for Information issued by the TLC on February 20, 2008, other than as a member of the TLC Taxi of Tomorrow Stakeholder Committee, or the development or issuance of this Request for Proposals, by work with TLC, Ricardo, Inc., Smart Design, or Design Trust for Public Space. No proposal submitted by a respondent with a conflict of interest as defined in this paragraph will be considered. 2. A conflict of interest will exist if, at any time before the award of a contract, respondent, or any member or employee of respondent, or any consultant or other private organization retained by or compensated by respondent, obtains confidential information about the Taxi of Tomorrow project from TLC, Ricardo, Inc., Smart Design, or Design Trust for Public Space. A respondent with a conflict of interest as defined in this paragraph may be disqualified. Each respondent must complete and submit Attachment H certifying that the respondent has and will have no conflict of interest as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2, above. B. Proposal Package Contents (“Checklist”) The Proposal Package should contain the following materials. Respondents should utilize this section as a “checklist” to assure completeness prior to submitting their proposal. 1. A sealed inner envelope labeled “Program Proposal,” containing one original set and ten duplicate sets of the documents listed below in the following order. A CD-ROM of the Technical Proposal may also be included:

• Proposal Cover Letter Form (Attachment A) • Acknowledgement of Addenda (Attachment B) • Technical Proposal

• Executive Summary • Proposed Approach

• Vehicles presented for the Taxi of Tomorrow must meet all minimum requirements to be considered responsive to this RFP. A summary of minimum requirements can be found on page 2 of Appendix A, Vehicle Technical Specifications.

• Organizational Capabilities • Experience • Completed Worksheets (Attachments C, D, and E). Respondents who fail to complete and

submit these unmodified worksheets may be considered non-responsive. • Affirmation (Attachment G) • Conflict of Interest Affirmation (Attachment H)

2. A separate sealed inner envelope labeled “Price Proposal” containing one original set and ten duplicate

sets of the Price Proposal. A CD-ROM of the Price Proposal may also be included. • Price Proposal Narrative and Worksheet. The unmodified worksheet, Attachment F, must be completed

and submitted. Respondents who fail to complete and submit this worksheet may be considered non-responsive.

18

3. All proposals must contain a third sealed inner envelope labeled “Doing Business Data Form” containing an original, completed Doing Business Data Form (Attachment J).

4. A sealed outer envelope, enclosing the three sealed inner envelopes. The sealed outer envelope should

have two labels containing: • The respondent’s name and address, the Title and PIN # of this RFP and the name and telephone number

of the Respondent’s Contact Person. • The name, title and address of the Authorized Agency Contact Person.

SECTION V - PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD PROCEDURES A. Evaluation Procedures All proposals accepted by the TLC will initially be reviewed to determine whether they are responsive or non-responsive to the requisites of this RFP. Proposals that are determined by the TLC to be non-responsive will be rejected. The TLC’s Evaluation Committee will evaluate and rate all remaining proposals based on the Evaluation Criteria prescribed below. The TLC reserves the right to conduct site visits and/or interviews and/or to request that respondents make presentations and/or demonstrations, as the TLC deems applicable and appropriate. Although discussions may be conducted with respondents submitting acceptable proposals, the TLC reserves the right to award contracts on the basis of initial proposals received, without discussions; therefore, the respondent’s initial proposal should contain its best technical and price terms. Each proposal will be evaluated in three categories: (a) proposed approach, (b) organizational capabilities, and (c) experience. B. Evaluation Criteria

• Quality of proposed approach 55% • Demonstrated level of organization capability 25% • Demonstrated quantity and quality of successful relevant experience 20%

C. Basis for Contract Award A contract will be awarded to the responsive proposer whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the City, taking into consideration the price and such other factors or criteria which are set forth in this RFP. The price proposal is to be calculated as the average cost to the taxi industry to purchase and operate the vehicles as taxis. These costs to the industry include the price of the vehicle, the anticipated lifetime repair and parts replacement costs, maintenance costs, and fuel cost over a five year period. The TLC considers this to be the total lifecycle cost. Here is an example of how the average cost will be calculated. If a vehicle with a total lifecycle cost of $165,000 is offered in each of the first three years, and then a vehicle with a total lifecycle cost of $150,000 is offered in each of the remaining seven years, the average lifecycle cost will be calculated as [($165,000 *3) + ($150,000*7)] / 10 years = $154,500.

19

The average total lifecycle cost will then be divided by five years to determine a yearly lifecycle cost. The yearly life cycle cost will be multiplied by the total number of taxis, 13,237, to determine the total annual cost. The total annual cost will be divided by the total number of trips performed per year, 240,000,000. The result is the cost per trip to operate a taxi. The cost per trip to operate a taxi will be divided by the average passenger fare, $12.50. The result is the cost per trip to operate a taxi as a percentage of the average fare. The percentage of the average fare will be subtracted from 1 and the result will be multiplied by the technical score. The result is the final technical score. The higher the cost per average passenger fare, the more the technical score will be reduced. An example illustrating how the price proposal affects the technical score and will be considered in making the award is included below. Example Technical Score 82 Total Lifecycle Cost $154,500 Yearly Lifecycle Cost $30,900 Divided Total Lifecycle Cost by 5 years Total Annual Cost $409,023,300 Multiplied yearly lifecycle cost by 13,237 Cost per Trip to Operate a Taxi $1.70 Divided Total Annual Cost by 240,000,000 trips Percent of Average Fare to Operate a Taxi 14% Divided Cost per Trip by $12.50 Multiplier 0.86 Subtracted Percent of Average Fare from 1 Final Technical Score 70.5 Multiplier applied to Technical Score

Contract award shall be subject to the TLC’s adoption of rulemaking mandating the Taxi of Tomorrow as the sole authorized taxi vehicle and the timely completion of contract negotiations between the TLC and the selected respondent.

Message from the New York City Vendor Enrollment Center

Get on mailing lists for New York City contract opportunities!

Submit a NYC-FMS Vendor Application - Call 212/857-1680

NYC Taxi of Tomorrow; PIN: 85701000514 Appendix A - Vehicle Technical Specification Page 1 of 21

This appendix is intended to be used in conjunction with the Taxi of Tomorrow RFP which provides the intentions and overview of the project. It is necessary to understand the vision and goals of the project before answering the questions in this section.

1. Introduction There are significant opportunities and challenges in designing a vehicle specifically for use as a taxi. However one of the key opportunities identified during the preliminary discussions for the Taxi of Tomorrow (“ToT”) was to leverage manufacturer’s knowledge of design, development and validation as well as their in-depth understanding of the structural performance of their own vehicle in order to optimize the taxi content in a way that benefits all stakeholders.

The process for making an existing vehicle legal for taxi use is called a hack-up, and with the exception of some features that have been made available as a taxi package from manufacturers, is currently provided by third party companies with little or no input from the vehicle manufacturer. The TLC realizes that the opportunity exists to improve the quality of the taxi-specific content by increasing its integration with the base vehicle design. The phrase “integrated content” when used in this document indicates the provision of taxi-specific features described in the Taxi of Tomorrow RFP and section 3b of this specification that are designed, developed and validated by or with significant input from the original equipment manufacturer.

Most of the specifications indicated in this document can cover a range of possible values; a target range has been shown where appropriate. Some specifications include a minimum requirement (i.e. a feature that must be present or at a particular required level in order for a design to be considered acceptable for use as a taxi).

All minimum requirements must be met to be considered responsive to this RFP. A summary table of minimum requirements can be found on page 2 of this appendix. For each year that a vehicle is offered, responders must complete the attached worksheet. For each year of the contract, all vehicles proposed will be evaluated based on the responses to the questions posed in this document; from these responses, an aggregate score will be assigned to each responder based on the vehicles they plan to offer over the contract period. If respondents propose multiple vehicles in the same year (i.e. to meet requirements for Alternative Fuel or Accessible medallions), a worksheet must be completed for each vehicle. The intent of the Taxi of Tomorrow program is to move towards a single vehicle fleet. Respondents who are able to offer a single vehicle fleet (i.e. one vehicle that can be operated on all medallion types) sooner will be given greater consideration.

If there are no changes from one model year to the next, the same sheet and answers may be used. Worksheets have been provided in Attachment C. The unmodified Attachment C must be completed and submitted. Respondents who fail to submit this required worksheet may be considered non-responsive. Respondents may also supply additional, supporting documents, provided the responder and year of introduction is clearly stated in the title.

Responders should clearly indicate the year and month when they expect to provide the first vehicles for taxi service. Responders will be assessed on the time between the contract award


and the availability of their first vehicle, with preference being given to vehicles available earlier, assuming that all other technical content is the same.

In addition to the aggregate score, respondents will be assessed on their capability and plan to implement the features requested – in order to validate your responses, supporting information indicating your understanding of the process of design, development, and validation of the feature content is evaluated along with the presence or specification level of a feature.

2. Minimum Requirements Vehicles presented for the Taxi of Tomorrow must meet all minimum requirements to be considered responsive to this RFP. Minimum requirements apply to all vehicles offered over the term of the contract. Failure to meet any of the minimum requirements will render the proposal non-responsive. Where a minimum is required, the requirement is indicated in bold text in the relevant section of this document. A summary of the minimum requirements is included below for reference:

Specification ToT Minimum Requirement FMVSS test protocols The minimum requirement will be demonstrated compliance with all

relevant FMVSS standards with all taxi content fitted US-NCAP The minimum requirement for front, rear, side and rollover US NCAP

rating for ToT vehicles will be 3 stars or higher with all taxi content fitted, based on the 2011 test protocol.

IIHS The minimum requirement for IIHS front offset, rear crash/head restraint, side and roof crush for any vehicle proposed for the ToT will be ‘A’ (average) with all taxi content fitted.

Taxi content (summary)

The minimum requirement for ToT vehicles is to have all taxi content defined based on feedback from stakeholder groups, validated as part of the vehicle sign-off process, and fully integrated into the OE manufacturing quality process.

Accessibility The minimum requirement for ToT vehicles is the capability to transfer a reduced-mobility rider from the curb to the taxi. If vehicles offered are not fully accessible as defined by the TLC rules, additional vehicles must be provided to accommodate the 231 accessible medallions currently in circulation. Assuming a service life of 5 years, approximately 500 vehicles would be required over the term of the contract.

Sustainability - fuel economy and emissions

Vehicles are required to comply with all Federal Fuel Economy and New York State emissions regulations in order to be considered for taxi service. The current legal requirement as defined in the Administrative Code of the City of New York is for 273 “alternative fuel” (hybrid-electric or CNG-fueled) vehicles. If vehicles offered are not hybrid-electric or CNG-fueled, additional vehicles must be provided to accommodate the 273 “alternative fuel” medallions currently in circulation. Assuming a service life of 5 years, approximately 550 vehicles would be required over the term of the contract.

Vehicle Color The minimum requirement for a ToT vehicle is that it must be must be painted yellow. The TLC is open to altering the shade of yellow that is currently used.

Warranty The minimum requirement for a ToT vehicle is a 150,000 mile powertrain warranty.


3. Human Factors

a. Safety

i) Introduction One of the key aspects of the ToT program is improved safety of all stakeholders – drivers, riders, other road users and pedestrians.

Vehicles offered for the ToT program will be rated on FMVSS, NCAP and IIHS ratings, with higher scoring vehicles ranked more favorably.

TLC is also interested in assessing non-legislated safety features that may be made available for taxis, particularly related to:

• Pedestrians, • Adult rear seat occupants • Child restraints (booster seats, special locations for baby seats, etc) • Wheelchair riders.

ii) FMVSS test protocols Federal regulations currently require that all passenger vehicles sold meet FMVSS safety standards. A key deliverable of the Taxi of Tomorrow is that these standards are met with all taxi-specific content already fitted. While it is theoretically possible to gain temporary exemption from some of these standards, a vehicle that relies on an exemption from a federal standard or fails to meet all applicable FMVSS standards with taxi equipment fitted will not be considered for the ToT program unless there is clear engineering evidence from simulation or other test data that the vehicle will be capable of meeting the required standards within an agreed timeframe.

The minimum requirement will be demonstrated compliance to all relevant FMVSS standards with all taxi content fitted. There are three currently pending items of safety legislation that will be enforced and should be considered during the ToT contract period:

• A rigid barrier side impact (“pole test” ) due in 2014 • An increase in the test speeds and test dummy configuration for the front impact test

(FMVSS208) due in 2012. • A requirement for a vehicle stability control system (FMVSS 126) due in 2011.

Responders will be expected to maintain compliance with any future FMVSS standards that may be enacted during the contract period.

Please confirm that the ToT vehicle will meet all applicable FMVSS requirements when configured as a taxi. Additional consideration will be given to vehicles that meet side pole test and increased speed frontal impact standards before the mandated introduction date.

Please describe the test and validation protocol you expect to use for the ToT program vehicles, indicating the target ratings you expect to achieve, design studies and analysis that you expect to perform prior to a vehicle build, and countermeasures that you typically apply in the event that these targets are not met.

iii) NCAP Ratings The Federal government publishes New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) ratings which describe the percent chance of serious injury for different impact types if you are traveling in


the vehicle in question. These tests are carried out on all vehicles and have a calculated “star” rating system, with 5 stars representing the lowest risk and 1 star being the highest. As most new vehicles currently reach a 4 or 5 star rating, legislation has been recently enacted to reclassify the star ratings in order to afford greater differentiation between vehicles. This new rating system will come into effect in 2011 (a one year postponement from the original 2010 introduction date).

Please describe the test and validation protocol you expect to use to determine the NCAP rating for your vehicles, indicating the target ratings you expect to achieve, design studies and analysis that you expect to perform prior to a vehicle build, and countermeasures that you typically apply in the event that these targets are not met.

The minimum requirement for front, rear, side and rollover US NCAP rating for ToT vehicles will be 3 stars or higher with all taxi content fitted, based on the 2011 test protocol.

iv) IIHS ratings The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) carries out independent assessments of occupant injury for new vehicles. Their test protocol is rated into four categories from poor to good. IIHS test protocols are published and tests can be carried out by third party facilities.

There is currently little legislative requirement for rear seat passengers and wheelchair users – TLC is interested in features that demonstrate a verifiable increase the safety of these passenger groups in all types of impact tests.

Please describe the test and validation protocol you expect to use to determine the IIHS rating for your vehicles, indicating the target ratings you expect to achieve, design studies and analysis that you expect to perform prior to a vehicle build, and countermeasures that you typically apply in the event that these targets are not met.

The minimum requirement for IIHS front offset, rear crash/head restraint, side and roof crush for any vehicle proposed for the ToT will be ‘A’ (average) with all taxi content fitted.

v) Pedestrian Protection US Legislation currently has little or no provision for assessing impact protection for pedestrians; however, TLC is committed to offering improved safety for pedestrians as a feature of the Taxi of Tomorrow. NCAP standards (for pedestrian safety) are currently in force in Europe – please provide an analysis of your vehicles’ pedestrian safety impact using this or an equivalent protocol.

b. Taxi content As described earlier in this document, there are a number of specific features that are required on a NYC taxi that are expected to be integrated into the design of the ToT. While they are described separately, many of the features of the individual systems have interfaces to the others – for this reason, it is important to view the taxi content as a system of components, rather than separate items.

Please explain how you plan to engage stakeholders in order to validate the requirements for these features such that they provide a useful benefit. For the content listed below, please also describe whether the feature will be offered, the responsible party for design / validation and the final assembly location if different from the vehicle assembly line. Items such as the


taximeter and technology package may continue to be sourced from third parties; however the integration of this content is the responsibility of the OE manufacturer or its appointed agent (see “safety” above).

The TLC expects to revise its existing regulations prescribing specific vehicle standards as part of the Taxi of Tomorrow project, and the TLC is open to specific revisions that might be required to incorporate alternate standards proposed by the successful respondent that would ultimately achieve a better taxi without sacrificing or lowering the overall goals the existing regulations are designed to achieve. Respondents should be aware that TLC regulations may be changed only by majority vote of the TLC’s Commissioners. If the TLC opts to retain an existing regulation that would prohibit a particular element of the proposal, the successful respondent must work with the TLC to achieve a solution that complies with TLC regulations.

The minimum requirement for ToT vehicles is to have all taxi content defined based on feedback from stakeholder groups, validated as part of the vehicle sign-off process, and fully integrated into the OE manufacturing quality process.

i) Driver Safety system Current TLC regulations state that vehicles to be used as taxis must be fitted with either a safety partition or a security camera system. The partition is designed to provide physical protection for the driver; however it has the potential to restrict a number of other aspects of the vehicle, including driver seat operating range, driver rearward vision, driver/passenger communications, rear seat legroom and ingress foot room. A properly integrated partition is also likely to change the vehicle structural rigidity and crash test performance. The camera system provides a deterrent to passengers who might otherwise harm the driver; when coupled with the increased use of credit cards and the subsequent reduction in the quantity of cash carried in the taxi, this option is preferred by some operators.

In addition to the above mentioned functions, the safety system must not inhibit the following activities

• The ability for the passenger to pay cash fares and receive receipts from the driver while the passenger is in the rear passenger compartment of the vehicle

• The ability of the passenger to communicate with the driver TLC is interested in options that would improve driver safety while maintaining interior space, driver comfort and driver-passenger communications, and will consider modifications and alternatives to partitions and cameras provided the new systems provide equivalent or improved levels of protection and deterrence to the systems currently offered. Please note that existing TLC regulations require most taxicabs to have partitions. Therefore, if the successful respondent proposes a solution that does not include a partition, it is possible that the TLC Commissioners may not vote to alter existing regulations to permit the respondent’s proposed solution. In that event, the successful respondent must work under the direction of the TLC to provide an acceptable solution.

The provision of an OE approved design for an integrated driver safety system is considered a minimum requirement for ToT vehicles.

Please describe your process for design and validation of the driver safety system, with specific reference to occupant safety, driver-passenger communications, ergonomics, and vehicle structural integration.


ii) Taximeter or fare recorder The vehicle must be fitted with a TLC-approved fully electronic tamper-resistant device for recording fares that meets National Institute of Standards and Technology and NY State Department of Agriculture standards. The device must clearly and accurately display fare information to the passenger, be accessible to the driver without removing his /her seatbelt, and make a printed receipt available to the passenger from his/her seated location. The device that currently accomplishes this function is the taximeter. A list of licensed taximeter shops can be found on TLC’s website at http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/excel/current_taxicab_metershops.xls.

The ToT should incorporate, as far as is practical, a meter location that is integrated into the vehicle dash panel to minimize the impact on HVAC registers and driver controls, while maintaining ease of use for the driver and visibility for the rider.

Please describe the provisions for the taximeter or fare recorder that you will make on the vehicle, and the metrics you will use to establish its location.

The provision of an OE approved installation location, mount and wiring for the fare recorder is considered a minimum requirement for ToT vehicles.

iii) External Communications Package The goal of an external communication package is to dynamically convey availability and destination of the car to potential passengers, demonstrate movements and behavior of the taxi to other vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, and include external markings to designate it as an officially licensed taxi. This package would also help facilitate new uses envisioned for taxis, such as the Group Rides and Ridesharing pilot programs, by communicating destination and direction of travel. Several pieces of mandated equipment currently accomplish this goal:

• A roof light, controlled by the taximeter, indicates taxi availability and demonstrates potential taxi activity such as turn signals and passenger pick up / drop off.

• A medallion, secured through a mounting hole on the vehicle’s hood, indicates that the taxi is licensed. In addition, a distinct shade of exterior yellow paint, decals with medallion numbers, fare information and external TLC graphics also offer consistent signage and provide visible and easily recognizable markings. The vehicle must be painted yellow, but the TLC is open to altering the shade of yellow that is currently used.

• A trouble light, mounted on the front and rear of the vehicle and controlled by a concealed driver-operated switch, is used to communicate personal safety issues to law enforcement without attracting the attention of the passenger.

In developing an integrated communication package that meets the goals outlined above, respondents may wish to consider a rooftop unit that can also be used to display advertising or propose an alternative solution to advertising. Advertising space may be made available on taxis as an additional revenue stream for owners. Currently, the only form of approved exterior advertising is through rooftop units. Current rooftop units are usually backlit, mounted on the roof of the vehicle, and tend to be poorly matched to the roof plane and the vehicle style. TLC is interested in proposals that present a more integrated approach, and respondents may wish to consider innovative forms of advertising such as location-specific electronic signage. TLC does not allow “wrapping” an advertisement around a taxi.


The provision of an OE approved external communications package is considered a minimum requirement for ToT vehicles.

iv) Advertising space Exterior advertising space may be made available on taxis as an additional revenue stream for owners. Advertising material must not be placed in proximity to the regulated taxi signage; however TLC currently allows advertising units to be fitted to the roof of a taxi. These units are usually backlit, mounted on the roof of the vehicle, and tend to be poorly matched to the roof plane and the vehicle style. TLC is interested in proposals that present a more integrated approach to presenting advertising space on taxis.

Any feature that enables or facilitates the placement of advertising on a taxi must not interfere with or reduce the visibility of the taxi content previously described. If offered, it should be treated as part of the “taxi-specific content” described in Section III, B of the main RFP document and supplied and fitted as part of the OE vehicle manufacturing process.

v) Seating layout A small footprint for the vehicle is good for infrastructure space optimization, but maximizing cabin and luggage space in smaller vehicles can be challenging. TLC is interested in exploring innovative solutions to interior seating layouts that leverage the smaller cabin volume expected for the vehicle while maintaining flexibility for passengers, luggage, oversize items, and accessibility guidelines.

Please describe the process used for determining the cabin layout proposed for the vehicle, including size percentile people accommodated and the size of any convertible seating / stowage areas.

vi) Seat and floor coverings Upholstery, trim and floor coverings should be non-permeable to facilitate cleaning and maintenance. The current vinyl materials in use are functional but do not enhance the rider experience. TLC is seeking more durable and comfortable technology and materials for the interior of the taxi. The use of removable covers may be considered, provided the attachment of these covers to the seat does not affect the operation of other safety systems or inhibit ingress and egress from the vehicle.

Please describe the materials you are proposing for the interior of the cab, and explain why they are superior to those currently offered.

vii) Communication of driver licensure The TLC vehicle ID and driver's license must be visible to the passenger from the back seat. This is currently accomplished through the driver hack license holder. This license holder is typically attached to the partition; responders explain how this feature is to be provided if a safety system other than a partition is proposed.

viii) Driver work area Previous reviews with stakeholders identified a requirement for a driver work area, including secure storage, an insulated compartment, power outlets and a work area for completing paperwork.

Please describe your initial proposal for developing this concept, indicating the maximum sizes of any stowage compartments and work surfaces that could be incorporated, and your plans to refine the concept in conjunction with stakeholders.


ix) Media, payment and location technology package (T-PEP) The technology package provides the following functionality for the taxi:

• A Passenger Information Monitor (PIM), providing a “Moving map” display for passengers, total fare at the end of each trip, TLC safety and public service announcements, as well as news, sports, and weather feeds (uploaded daily). The display may be muted or turned off by the passenger.

• An automated trip log (pick up / drop off location and time, cab and driver license number, number of passengers, trip distance and fare) which is securely communicated to TLC and the taxi operating company.

• A credit / debit card payment system • A text messaging system whereby short messages can be to and from taxis to enhance

communication for events such as citywide emergency and lost property claims. Drivers provide responses by pressing a single button.

The taxi technology package currently used is provided by one of three companies. Responders are free to offer an alternative system, provided that its feature content and price point are as good as or better than those systems currently offered.

TLC is also interested in opportunities for obtaining vehicle diagnostic information across this link to reduce the time required for the vehicle inspections.

Please describe your proposal for integrating the taxi technology package into the vehicle, including the supplier of the technology package, the design, development and validation protocols that will be employed if a new system is developed, any additional feature content that will be offered and the proposed introduction date of a replacement system.

The provision of an OE approved design for an integrated taxi technology package is considered a minimum requirement for ToT vehicles.

x) Trouble light and switch The trouble light is a means for taxi drivers to communicate to external persons that assistance is required. The current specification includes two amber flashing front and rear exterior mounted lamps (mounted on the front and rear of the vehicle) and a driver operated switch. It is designed to be operated in such a way that other people inside the taxi are unaware of its operation. TLC is interested in alternative approaches that accomplish the same goal.

Please describe the driver trouble light and switch system that you are proposing for the ToT and the metrics you will use in establishing its ease of operation and effectiveness.

The provision of an OE approved design for an integrated trouble lamp system is considered a minimum requirement for ToT vehicles.


xi) Driver/ passenger communications system The taxi of tomorrow must be fitted with an effective method of communications between the driver and passenger. This is typically carried out in existing vehicles by means of a sliding window in the partition, which can also be used for transfer of fares to the driver and receipts to the passenger.

TLC is interested in alternative approaches to this that benefit both driver and passenger – if an electronic system is employed, it should include provision for deaf and/or hard-of-hearing users, and the option for the passenger to mute the transmission of sounds from the rear of the taxi. Features such as noise cancelling and hands free operation are encouraged.

Please describe the driver / passenger communications system that you are proposing for the ToT and the metrics you will use in establishing its effectiveness.

The provision of an OE approved driver-passenger communications system is considered a minimum requirement for ToT vehicles.

xii) Paint Color Part of the “iconic” content of a NYC taxi is the yellow paint color. The vehicle must retain an overall yellow paint color, although different color signage, decals, etc may be used to emphasize specific aspects of the vehicle if desired. Responders may elect to offer a different shade of yellow to the one currently used.

The minimum requirement for all ToT vehicles is that they must be must be painted yellow. The TLC is open to altering the shade of yellow that is currently used.

c. Ergonomics

i) Driver The TLC would like vehicles that are used as taxis to accommodate the widest range of drivers possible, with a minimum target range of 5th percentile female to 95th percentile male. Measurements used for this evaluation should include H point location, foot room, seat height, head, shoulder, elbow, hip and leg room, and driver cabin volume index. Measurements used to determine the range should be described in accordance with SAE J1100.

Please describe the percentile range of drivers that your vehicle is designed to accommodate after it has been configured (or hacked up) as a taxi, and the means by which you determine this range. Please also describe any design attributes considered when evaluating a 12 hour / day driver usage pattern compared to a typical passenger vehicle. As vehicles are expected to be based on an existing or proposed platform, it is assumed that typical ergonomic targets have already been determined. The interaction of the driver with the taxi content and any limitations introduced by that content and a plan to improve this over time should be fully reviewed in the submission.

ii) Passenger TLC would like vehicles that are used as taxis to accommodate the widest range of rear seat passengers possible, with a minimum target range of 5th percentile female to 95th percentile male. Ease of ingress and egress as well as comfort when seated should be considered as primary goals.

Please describe the percentile range of passengers that your vehicle is designed to accommodate after it has been configured (or hacked up) as a taxi, and the means by which you determine this range. A vehicle that is easy to enter and exit while minimizing


unintentional contact with the outside of the vehicle will be considered beneficial. The impact of any variations in passenger volume due to a flexible cabin layout should also be specified. As vehicles are expected to be based on an existing or proposed platform, it is assumed that typical ergonomic targets have already been determined; however the interaction of the passenger with the taxi content and any limitations introduced by that content should be fully reviewed in the submission.

iii) Trunk volume and access TLC would like vehicles that are used as taxis to accommodate the largest volume of luggage possible. Ease of loading and unloading and the provision of oversize objects should also be considered. It is acceptable for oversize objects in the cabin to displace passenger seating capacity; provision for storage of briefcases or carry-on bags within the passenger cabin should also be considered.

Please describe the type and volume of luggage that your vehicle is designed to accommodate after it has been configured (or hacked up) as a taxi, and the means by which you determine this range. Measurements used for this evaluation should include lift over height, trunk lip height, reach-in and cargo volume index, as well as additional features employed to facilitate luggage storage, retention and removal and how these values are changed if a flexible seating layout is made available. Measurements used to determine the range should be described in accordance with SAE J1100.

d. HVAC system

i) Driver TLC would like vehicles that are used as taxis to provide best A/C and heating performance possible within the constraints of the base vehicle and price point.

Please describe metrics by which you measure driver HVAC performance, and describe any steps you will take to ensure that driver comfort is maintained given the usage pattern compared to a typical passenger vehicle. Consideration should be given to vehicles that can provide split zone (upper and lower) temperature control, low parasitic power consumption, and low vent velocity coupled with high maximum airflow, and a wide range of adjustability.

Any reduction in performance of the base vehicle system due to the introduction of taxi –specific content should be fully reviewed in the submission.

ii) Passenger TLC would like vehicles that are used as taxis to provide the best passenger A/C and heating performance possible within the constraint of price and cabin layout. The TLC requires a rear heating and HVAC system to be fitted to all vehicles that are used as taxis. Current taxis must be fitted with either an auxiliary unit (using a secondary evaporator core and fan) or a patch unit (redirecting air from the OE system). Of these, the patch system is more frequently used, and offers poor performance compared to OE-designed solutions.

In order to significantly improve the current systems, TLC expects responders to provide a fully engineered solution to rear seat HVAC, including the following features:

• Passenger control of both rear cabin temperature and airflow. • Directable vent outlets for each rear seat location and controls that can be reached by any

rear seat occupant without removing their seat belt.


• Rear side window demist performance equivalent to that used for windshield systems is also considered beneficial to provide a better interior environment when multiple passengers are in the vehicle.

Please describe metrics by which you measure passenger HVAC performance, the targets you will apply, and the steps you will take to integrate a rear HVAC system into the vehicle. Consideration should be given to vehicles that can provide split zone (upper and lower) temperature control, low parasitic power consumption, low vent velocity coupled with high maximum airflow, a wide range of adjustability and controls that can be reached by belted rear seat passengers.

As a guideline, rear HVAC and side window demist performance should be similar to that offered to the driver and front passenger.

e. Noise and Vehicle Harshness (NVH)

i) Driver TLC would like vehicles that are used as taxis to provide a comfortable environment for drivers, given the usage pattern compared to a typical passenger vehicle.

Please describe metrics by which you measure driver NVH performance, and the targets you will apply to the vehicle. Describe any steps you will take to ensure that these aspects are optimized. Parameters such as noise, steering and seat track vibration level over smooth and rough road surfaces at idle, part and full load should be considered, as well as any other specific measurements that are included in your validation process.

As vehicles are expected to be based on an existing or proposed platform, it is assumed that objective and subjective driver NVH targets have already been determined; however consideration for the length of time spent by the driver in the vehicle and your proposed classification criteria and target for objective and subjective evaluation should be included in the response.

ii) Passenger TLC would like vehicles that are used as taxis to provide a comfortable environment for passengers.

Please describe metrics by which you measure driver NVH performance, and the targets you will apply to the proposed vehicle. Describe any steps you will take to ensure that these aspects are optimized given that typical passenger vehicles are tuned for front seat rather than rear seat passengers. Parameters such as seat back and cushion vibration over smooth and rough road surfaces at idle, part and full load, vehicle body stiffness and impact over obstacles should be considered alongside other metrics that are typically included in your validation process.

There is no minimum requirement specified for passenger NVH performance; however your response should include any specific solutions proposed to improve rear seat passenger NVH when compared to a typical passenger vehicle as well as your proposed classification criteria and target for objective and subjective evaluation.

f. Ride comfort

i) Driver TLC would like vehicles that are used as taxis to provide the best possible driver ride comfort.


Please describe metrics by which you measure driver ride performance, the targets you will apply, and the steps you will take to develop this aspect of the vehicle, given the usage profile and extended time the driver spends in the vehicle. Your response should consider primary and secondary ride and impact harshness.

As vehicles are expected to be based on an existing or proposed platform, it is assumed that typical ride targets have already been determined; however specific consideration to the length of time spent by the driver in the vehicle should be applied to the analysis; the expectation is that the vehicle will be focused around passenger ride comfort without significantly compromising the driver experience.

ii) Passenger TLC would like vehicles that are used as taxis to provide the best possible passenger ride comfort.

Please describe metrics by which you measure passenger ride performance, the targets you will apply, and the steps you will take to develop this aspect of the vehicle, given that typical passenger vehicles are tuned for front seat rather than rear seat passengers. Your response should consider primary and secondary ride and impact harshness. Specific issues around perception of rear seat passenger ride comfort, (including the effect of direction of motion) and ride comfort for accessible vehicles where the passenger remains in their wheelchair should also be considered.

There is no minimum requirement specified for passenger ride performance; however your response should include any specific solutions proposed for rear seat passenger ride comfort compared to a typical passenger vehicle as well as your proposed classification criteria and target for objective and subjective evaluation.

4. Accessibility

a. Wheelchair users

i) Introduction TLC would like vehicles that are used as taxis to provide the best possible compromise between package / fuel efficiency and accessibility. It should be noted however that ADA guidelines are designed around public service vehicles such as buses; for that reason, a number of the metrics will not be directly applicable to passenger cars that are used as taxis.

TLC expects that content for enabling accessibility will be integrated into the original vehicle design - all accessible content should be considered to be part of the OE vehicle specification. Additional consideration will be given to flexible interior layouts that can accommodate wheelchair, reduced mobility and mobile riders.

DOT regulations are codified under 49 CFR 38; ADA guidelines are listed under 36CFR 1192 parts A and B.

There have been recent proposals to update 36 CFR 1192 to simplify the regulation and accommodate larger mobility vehicles that were not in service when the standard was first adopted. Unless otherwise specified, the newest proposals are referenced in this document and should be used to determine whether the vehicle can be considered accessible.

There are currently approximately 231 accessible vehicle medallions in circulation; if the vehicle proposed for use as the ToT is not capable of being engineered to accept accessible content, respondents may offer additional accessible vehicles as part of the Taxi fleet but, a multi-vehicle fleet is considered less desirable than a single vehicle 100% accessible fleet


unless there are significant compromises required in the rest of the vehicle specification to obtain 100% accessibility. Given that TLC would prefer a single accessible fleet, care should be taken to ensure that the other benefits of the non-accessible vehicle as well as the reasons why it cannot be made accessible are clearly stated if a multi-vehicle approach is offered.

While there are only limited standards available, TLC is also interested in improving safety of wheelchair passengers during impacts. In addition to the ADA requirements for seat belts and securement devices, please describe any provisions you expect to make to improve wheelchair user safety to similar levels to that afforded to rear seat passengers seated in the original rear seats.

ii) ADA compliance With the introduction of the ToT vehicle, TLC would like to have a 100% accessible taxi fleet. There are currently approximately 231 accessible vehicle medallions in circulation. If the vehicle proposed for use as the ToT is not capable of being engineered to accept fully accessible content, please describe the process by which you will provide accessible vehicles for the Taxi fleet that can be run on the accessible medallions.

Please describe all accessibility modifications that will be made to the vehicle, and describe the design and validation process you will use to ensure that the effect on the vehicle structure of these modifications is accounted for. If a secondary vehicle that provides accessible content is offered, please describe the content and modification to this vehicle also. This explanation may also include questions asked in sections (ii) through (xii) if desired.

ToT vehicles will be expected to include accessible content that provides an opportunity to ride for the largest number of disabled users consistent with the base design of the vehicle.

The minimum requirement for ToT vehicles is the capability to transfer a reduced-mobility rider from the curb to the taxi.

If vehicles offered are not fully accessible as defined by the TLC rules, additional vehicles must be provided to accommodate the 231 accessible medallions currently in circulation. Assuming a service life of 5 years, approximately 500 vehicles would be required over the term of the contract.

b. Equivalent facilitation The DOT regulation includes a provision for “equivalent facilitation”, whereby manufacturers can demonstrate that different approaches to vehicle design can provide the same level of accessibility as vehicles that are compliant with the standard.

Please outline what steps you will take in order to identify alternative technologies that provide an equivalent level of accessibility to the ADA guidelines.

i) Stakeholder participation 49 CFR 37.7 specifies that public participation and review with stakeholder groups is required if an offer of equivalent facilitation is proposed.

Please explain how you plan to engage stakeholders to develop the specification for a taxicab that meets the requirements of the accessible community.

ii) General clearances for wheelchair access In order to meet ADA guidelines for accessibility, sufficient clearances shall be provided to permit a wheelchair or other mobility aid user to reach securement locations. At least one route to each securement location shall have a clear width of 36 inches minimum, measured


from floor level to a height of 40 inches, and a clear width of 30 inches above a height of 40 inches. Where a turn is required, sufficient maneuvering space shall be provided to allow a wheelchair or mobility aid having a width of 30 inches maximum and a length of 48 inches maximum to turn with a minimum of back-and-forth movement.

Please describe the methodology used to develop wheelchair clearances and indicate the maximum size of wheelchair that can be accommodated in the vehicle.

iii) Vehicle lifts and ramps Vehicle lifts and ramps must be capable of bearing a wheelchair + occupant load of 600lbs with a suitable factor of safety (although proposed legislation may increase this to 660 lbs.) Lifts and ramps must be fitted with interlocks to prevent the vehicle from being driven with the ramp deployed, and to prevent the ramp from being deployed if the vehicle has not been immobilized. Powered ramps and lifts must be capable of manual operation to remove an occupant from the vehicle in the event of a loss of power. Slope for ramps should be no more than 1:8 to any ground surface. A compartment, securement system, or other appropriate method shall be provided to ensure that stowed ramps, including portable ramps stowed in the passenger area, do not impinge on a passenger's wheelchair or mobility aid or pose any hazard to passengers in the event of a sudden stop or maneuver.

TLC is interested in understanding more about the perceived benefit from stakeholders of side vs. rear ramp location, as well as the direction that the chair faces when traveling, particularly when this direction is driven by other package considerations.

Please describe the location and design of the ramp, deployment and storage system that will be employed on an accessible vehicle, and describe the design and validation process you will use to ensure that the effect on the vehicle structure of these modifications is accounted for.

iv) Securement devices The securement system must have a clear floor area of 30” x 48”, with additional maneuvering room for confined spaces, and adjacent space for service animals. Securement areas can have fold-up seats to accommodate other passengers when a mobility aid is not occupying the area, provided the clear floor space is maintained when the seat is folded up. If a rearward-facing orientation is offered, a padded barrier must be provided in front of the location. In addition to the securement device, the location must be provided with lap and shoulder seat belts. The design guidelines for the restraint force applied to these devices are based around larger passenger vehicles that may have lower deceleration profiles than small vehicles.

Please describe the securement system proposed for the vehicle, its operation and the means by which you determine and validate the maximum loads that is must be required to withstand.

v) Seat belts and shoulder harnesses For each wheelchair or mobility aid securement device provided, a passenger seat belt and shoulder harness, complying with all applicable provisions of 49 CFR part 571, shall also be provided for use by wheelchair or mobility aid users. Such seat belts and shoulder harnesses shall not be used in lieu of a device which secures the wheelchair or mobility aid itself.

Please describe the restraint system proposed for the vehicle, its operation and the means by which you determine and validate the mounting locations and crash test performance of the installation.


vi) Doors, steps and thresholds Aisles, steps and floor areas shall be made of slip-resistant material and bounded by a boundary area having a contrast at least 70% different to the floor or step area.

Door heights are specified for two classes of vehicle – over 22 ft and less than 22ft long. Vehicles less than 22 ft long must have a minimum door height of 56”to be considered accessible. This measurement is based on a 95th percentile male seated in a wheelchair with an 18” seat height.

Please describe the design and location of the entry door proposed if your vehicle is designed to be wheelchair accessible.

vii) Interior circulation, handrails and stanchions In order to meet ADA guidelines for accessibility, handrails and stanchions shall be provided in the entrance to the vehicle in a configuration which allows persons with disabilities to grasp such assists from outside the vehicle while starting to board, and to continue using such assists throughout the boarding process. Handrails shall have a cross-sectional diameter between 1 1/4 inches and 1 1/2 inches or shall provide an equivalent grasping surface, and have eased edges with corner radii of not less than 1/8 inch. Handrails shall be placed to provide a minimum 1 1/2 inches knuckle clearance from the nearest adjacent surface. Without restricting the vestibule space, the assist shall provide support for a boarding passenger from the front door through the boarding procedure.

This is a general performance requirement for maneuverability. The characteristics of vehicles, especially when the lift or ramp is located in the front door, do not lend themselves to the common accessibility standard applied to buildings and facilities. The standard recognizes that the provision of a 36 inch aisle is desirable but that is not always possible on all vehicles.

Please describe the design and location of any handrails and stanchions proposed for your vehicle.

viii) Lighting A stepwell or doorway shall have, when the door is open, at least 2 foot-candles of illumination measured on the step tread or lift platform.

Please describe the design and location of lighting fixtures proposed for your vehicle.

ix) Signage Signage requirements in the ADA guidelines are primarily directed at destination and route signs; as such they are not directly applicable to taxis. However, TLC would like to ensure that signage in the vehicle is readable by the majority of riders.

Please describe the design and locations of signage proposed for the taxi and explain how you arrived at the size, color and fonts used to maximize the readability of the text. Alternate signage such as pictograms may be proposed if desired.

c. Other accessibility features

i) Introduction TLC is committed to making the Taxi of Tomorrow accessible to as many riders as possible. Please describe the process by which you will provide vehicles for the Taxi fleet that are accessible to the following groups of riders:


• Reduced mobility riders • Deaf and/or hard-of-hearing riders • Blind and/or low vision riders • Riders accompanied by service animals.

ii) Stakeholder participation TLC is interested to understand what steps / approaches responders will take in order to engage stakeholders to help develop the specification for a taxi that meets the requirements of the accessible community.

Please outline what steps / approaches you will take in order to engage stakeholders to determine the best way that the ToT can meet their requirements.

iii) Reduced mobility riders Riders who have limited mobility may have difficulty negotiating entry to a typical passenger vehicle. In this case, careful design of the entry opening, seat and step in/over heights etc may facilitate entry for a percentage of the community; however it is a minimum requirement for the ToT vehicle to have the capability to transfer a reduced-mobility rider from the curb to the taxi.

Traveling in a wheelchair in the vehicle is generally considered to be less comfortable for most riders than utilizing the vehicle seat; provision for wheelchair storage for those riders who are able to transfer to the vehicle seat should be provided.

Please describe the functional specification and of any reduced-mobility aids offered.

iv) Deaf and/or hard-of-hearing riders Improving provisions for deaf and/or hard-of-hearing riders is an important aspect of the ToT. Assistance devices that link to hearing aids, modifications to the driver-passenger communications system to enhance clarity of speech, speech to text translators, etc. are possible improvements to the current systems that may be considered.

Please outline what steps / approaches you will take in order to engage stakeholders to determine the best way that the ToT can meet their requirements.

v) Blind and/or low vision riders In addition to the more obvious aspects surrounding location and operation of controls, identification of door apertures and seat locations, Braille signage, etc, blind and low vision riders face specific challenges when using taxis, including differentiating the taxi from other road traffic and identification of a taxi that is responding to a hail. Your submission should include the functional specification of proposed provisions for blind and/or low vision users based on feedback from the stakeholder groups.

vi) Provisions for service animals Service animals support a variety of users, and improving their comfort and safety when traveling in a taxi is a key requirement of the ToT.

Entry and exit from the vehicle, proximity to the rider, floor area / covering and minimizing injury in the event of an impact should be considered in developing this aspect of the ToT.

Your submission should include the functional specification of proposed provisions for the accommodation and safety of service animals based on feedback from the stakeholder groups.


vii) Additional provisions for improving the safety of wheelchair users. Accessibility provisions where the rider is not seated in a standard vehicle seating location should where possible offer equivalent levels of impact safety as those for a rider seated in the standard rear seat location.

Your submission should include the functional specification and validation methodology used when reviewing additional safety features for wheelchair riders and a plan for engaging stakeholders to provide feedback into the process.

Accessible provisions such as grab rails, stowed turnout seats, etc should not impact the impact safety of riders located in the standard rear seat locations; any accessible content should be considered to be part of the taxi package when carrying out FMVSS testing per section 3a(ii).

5. Sustainability

a. Introduction TLC is concerned about the environmental impact of a potential NYC taxi throughout its life cycle, including raw materials, manufacturing and transport to point of use, in-use (both NYC and secondary market) and end of life disposal.

Currently, The Administrative Code of the City of New York 19-532(b) states that that at least 273 medallions require a “alternative fuel” vehicle (namely, one that has either a hybrid-electric or compressed natural gas (CNG) fuelled Powertrain. This legislation was originally introduced to encourage medallion owners to invest in more fuel efficient vehicles.

As a minimum requirement, respondents should provide at least 273 “alternative fuel” (hybrid-electric or CNG-fueled) vehicles as defined in the Administrative Code of the City of New York. If vehicles offered are not hybrid-electric or CNG-fueled, additional vehicles must be provided to accommodate the 273 “alternative fuel” medallions currently in circulation. Assuming a service life of 5 years, approximately 550 vehicles would be required over the term of the contract.

As a minimum requirement, vehicles are required to comply with all Federal Fuel Economy and New York State emissions regulations in order to be considered for taxi service.

b. Fuel economy and emissions performance

i) Introduction In-use energy represents a large percentage of the total energy footprint of a vehicle. As a large percentage of the passenger car traffic on Manhattan is made up of yellow taxis, this provides a significant opportunity to improve the energy usage footprint and air quality in the area.

While the content requirements for a taxi differs from a typical passenger car or light truck, performance and range specifications for the vehicle have been defined wherever possible to provide the opportunity for responders to offer a vehicle that has better fuel economy and reduced emissions performance when operated as a taxi than the base vehicle from which it is derived.

NTHSA has defined standards for 2011 model year and proposed draft standards for 2012 to 2016 model year for fuel economy based on the vehicle class (passenger car or light truck), footprint and year of introduction for the 5 year period.


Proposed Passenger Car Fuel Economy Targets: 74 FR 49472 (Sep. 28, 2009)

Proposed Light Truck Fuel Economy Targets: 74 FR 49473 (Sep. 28, 2009)

TLC would ideally like vehicles to be introduced for taxi service to meet or exceed the target fuel economy for their given platform, footprint and year of introduction, then continue to maintain or improve the relative position to the target fuel economy each year; however it is understood that manufacturers do not generally revise their platforms annually. To ensure that vehicles are capable of meeting future targets over the expected service period of the vehicle, responders are encouraged to offer vehicles that meet the target for the last expected year of service. As an example, a vehicle intended to be offered between 2012 and 2015 would ideally meet the 2015 target at its 2012 introduction if no fuel economy improvements to the platform are expected before 2015.

The vehicles offered will be rated based on the difference between the manufacturer’s estimated fuel economy and the NHTSA target fuel economy for that platform, footprint and


year, with consideration given for specific technology packages or additional content (see below). Vehicles that meet or exceed the target will receive higher scores. A score will be given for each year that the vehicle is offered, and the annual scores aggregated to provide an overall rating for each vehicle over its availability period.

A score will be given for each year that the vehicle is offered.

The score for the ToT will be based on the expected fuel economy of the vehicle being offered compared to its target fuel economy for each year of service without exceptions given for carry forward/ carry back or credit trading.

If multiple vehicles (for example accessible vehicles) are offered, a separate score will be given for each vehicle, and the scores added, based on the quantity of each vehicle offered for that year.

The current proposed legislation offers a relaxation to 90% of the fuel efficiency target for vehicles produced in volumes below 100,000 units per year. In order to ensure the best possible fuel efficiency target for the ToT, the score given will be based on the target fuel efficiency for the footprint and year without any consideration of production volume.

Fuel economy targets have not yet been proposed for 2017 and beyond, however it is expected that these will be more stringent than the 2016 standards. For scoring purposes, vehicles offered in 2017 and beyond will be scored against the 2016 target baseline for the platform and footprint.

Responders should include in their submission the following information:

• Year of introduction • Platform (Car or light truck) • Footprint (track x wheelbase) • Predicted city and highway fuel economy (FTP75 and HWFET). If you are offering a

hybrid vehicle, please specify energy used in accordance with SAE J1711, and indicate whether you are working with the current published specification or are incorporating any of the currently proposed revisions to the standard.

• Predicted fuel economy, based on the NTHSA targets shown above. • Emissions class • Any specific fuel economy and emissions improvement technologies used in the vehicle

(stop/start, mild/full hybrid, etc) • Any taxi-specific content that in your opinion significantly impacts the ability of the

vehicle to meet the target (for example, additional weight due to accessibility features).

ii) Percent by weight of Post-Consumer Recycled Raw Material Please describe the percent by weight of Post-Consumer Recycled Raw Material used in the vehicle. Please consider metal (ferrous and non-ferrous), plastics (type 1-6 and other), fabric, foam, glass and composite materials, and outline any specific materials that you use that increase the post consumer waste content.

iii) Percent by weight of Renewable Raw Material Please describe the percent by weight of renewable-source raw material used in the vehicle. Please consider Metal (ferrous and non-ferrous), plastics (type 1-6 and other), fabric, foam, glass and composite materials, and outline any specific materials that you use that increase the post consumer waste content VRP score.


iv) Manufacturing energy usage Please describe the process used to determine and classify the energy used during manufacture, as well as the estimated energy used per vehicle, and the airborne environmental impact, expressed as grams of VoC per vehicle. If you use renewable energy sources, please include percent of renewable energy used, and any waste that is reclaimed from the mfg plant. If the build is staged at multiple locations, please specify energy use for each one.

v) Shipping energy usage Please describe the expected method and estimated energy used to transport the vehicle from its manufacturing location to NYC. If the build is staged at multiple locations, please specify the transport energy between each location.

vi) End of life disposal Please describe any specific design features that facilitate the end of-life disposal of the vehicle. Aspects of end of life that may be considered should include VRP score, percent by weight of recyclable material that can be recovered from the vehicle, and provisions for recovery and recycling of hybrid batteries.

6. Performance

a. Introduction It is generally accepted that the current Ford Crown Victoria has a performance envelope that greatly exceeds the requirements for a vehicle used for NYC taxi service. Taxicabs make up a substantial portion of vehicular traffic in Manhattan and at area airports. Passenger comfort, safety of riders, drivers, and other road users as well as fuel and emissions footprint can be enhanced if the performance envelope of the Taxi of Tomorrow can be better matched to the use profile.

TLC is encouraging responders to consider how they can provide a performance envelope suitable for NYC taxi service while still maintaining the vehicles value for secondary markets where the use profile may be different.

b. Acceleration and top speed TLC recommends the following performance target ranges for vehicles to be considered for use as the ToT:

• 0-60 mph Acceleration: 10-12 seconds • 0-30 mph acceleration: 4-6 seconds • Top speed 75-80mph

Performance figures for hybrid vehicles shall indicate the mode that the vehicle is operating in and the state of charge of the battery or other energy source prior to the test.

As the vehicle may have a secondary use potential, the ability to change these targets within the engine control software after the vehicle has completed service in NYC will be considered advantageous. If such a feature is offered, please explain how to expect to implement and make the feature tamper-resistant.

c. Vehicle operating range Please describe the operating range in miles of the vehicle and the methodology used to arrive at the result. The range for hybrid vehicles shall indicate the contribution from the secondary power source, and its state of charge at the start of the test.


The average taxi covers approximately 140 miles in a single 12 hour shift. TLC is requesting a 12 hour vehicle operating range of between 150 and 200 miles. An operating range greater than 200 miles will not be considered advantageous.

d. Driveability Please describe the metrics and ratings you will apply to the vehicle to determine driveability, given the focus on passenger ride comfort. Typical metrics include tip in / tip out response, launch feel, acceleration linearity, shift smoothness, and gradeability.

e. Service Please describe the facilities you currently have, and the expected incremental improvements that you will apply to your service and support network in the NYC area over the life of the contract.

Your response should include a review of the expected service model (who services the vehicles and where), expected parts utilization and availability, provisions for manufacturer service engineers, training and certification for service mechanics, availability of technical service manuals and service tools, and provisions for warranty service.

Please specify the warranty period in terms of both mileage and time period that you would apply to the vehicles offered as part of the ToT program. Include any provisions for extended coverage that you are offering, and state any specific limitations that would apply.

The minimum requirement for a ToT vehicle is a 150,000 mile power train warranty.

NYC Taxi of Tomorrow; PIN: 85701000514

Appendix B: Organizational Capabilities Page 1 of 3

1. Introduction There is a significant responsibility associated with being the single-source provider of NYC taxis over the extended time period of the contract. Any shortfalls in product reliability or function will result in increased downtime and reduced profit for the operators, as well as inconvenience to taxi users. This in turn will reduce confidence in the supplier which will be difficult to recover, particularly if solutions to issues are not quickly resolved.

It is therefore important that responders are qualified and able to demonstrate their ability to design and develop not only the initial vehicle, but also updates to and replacements for the fleet over the course of the contract. While it is not expected that all responders will individually have the capability to design and engineer all parts of the vehicle, they will be expected to demonstrate a viable strategy for teaming with suppliers and partner companies to ensure that sub-systems and components selected and developed for the taxi of tomorrow are suitable for the expected “light commercial” style duty cycle that the vehicle will be exposed to.

Submissions from groups of companies and partnerships are welcomed; however groups of companies bidding under these circumstances must provide information on both engineering and financial relationships between the groups as well as information for each individual group, including who is designated as the Manufacturer of Record (MoR).

The project is expected to provide a reasonable profit for respondent(s) so aggressive cost assumptions should be balanced with a sustainable pricing structure in order to provide a high confidence that the respondent will be in a position to meet the ongoing vehicle update and support requirements over the entire life of the contract.

The unmodified Attachments D and E must be completed and submitted. Respondents who fail to submit these required worksheets may be considered non-responsive.

2. Engineering Capabilities Due to the nature of the engineering integration and length of the contract, NYC and TLC are seeking responses from qualified companies or partnerships to supply the Taxi of Tomorrow. These qualifications must include capability in each of the following areas:

• Styling • Product design • Development and testing • Parts procurement • Quality control • Manufacturing • Vehicle compliance and certification • After-sales parts, service and warranty support • Program investment, funding and credit

These capabilities may be held within the responder’s organization, distributed among members of a consortium or leveraged as outsourced services.

Worksheets have been provided to summarize the information to be provided.


Appendix B: Organizational Capabilities Page 2 of 3 To assess whether your company or consortium will be able to meet the financial obligations of the Taxi of Tomorrow program, you are asked to provide information that will be used to assess the engineering and commercial viability of your project proposal. Please present the financial portion of your project proposal in the form of a business plan covering the entire contract period.

Business plans will be assessed based on completeness of submission, viability of assumptions to meet project requirements, expected impact on respondent(s) business, and estimation of respondent(s) ability to execute the plan over the life of the contract.

a. Engineering design and development Please indicate your team’s capabilities for design and development of the Taxi of Tomorrow vehicle and sub-systems shown. If you do not have capability to design and develop a particular sub-system, please describe how you plan to deliver this aspect of the vehicle, and whether you have an existing agreement with another supplier or partner in place for the supply of this capability.

i) Manufacturing and vehicle assembly Responders will be expected to demonstrate capability in the manufacturing and assembly of commercially available vehicles in low to medium volumes. In addition to this, responders will be expected to demonstrate an effective, quality control system for manufacturing, assembly, and supplier qualification.

While the expected sales volume for yellow taxis for the Taxi of Tomorrow is approximately 2,650 units per year, to the TLC is interested in understanding the implications of increasing this to 6000 units per year. Responders should indicate the maximum annual volume that they would be able to support under the terms of the contract, any production volume or timing constraints that would inhibit the supply of the base vehicle to less than 6000 units per year, and any specific volume break points that would necessitate a change to the core manufacturing location, vehicle design, tooling or assembly process.

ii) In-use parts and service support Yellow taxis in NYC are largely serviced by the fleet operators and local garages that carry out both scheduled maintenance and repairs. However, TLC is interested in alternative approaches to this if it can be shown to provide benefits to all parties. Other incentives such as the supply of loaner vehicles, extended operating hours for parts availability, guaranteed availability of parts to limit the requirement to buy ahead, quantity discounts for bulk purchase, out of hours delivery of parts etc, can also be offered if desired; however, as part of their proposal, respondents are expected to present a plan for working with stakeholders to review these types of incentives to determine their actual value to the taxi community before finalizing the service and support operation for the Taxi of Tomorrow.

As a current manufacturer of vehicles it is expected that you will have a service and support infrastructure for your vehicles in place. It is also understood that this capability may not exist in the NYC area at the level required to support the Taxi of Tomorrow contract. Please indicate how you plan to leverage current resources in the NYC area and the level of additional facilities you expect to add to support the program.

Using the attached worksheet (Attachment D), please describe the proposed service and support infrastructure for the Taxi of Tomorrow program, and explain how it differs from your current model. Your response should include details of the supply of service manuals, service tools, training and re-certification of service staff, availability of service engineers,


Appendix B: Organizational Capabilities Page 3 of 3 and workflow for warranty issues. The unmodified Attachment D must be completed and submitted.

iii) Financial Capabilities Please describe the impact of the Taxi of Tomorrow contract on your current financial position in the form of a business plan. Your plan should include the incremental risks associated with adding the program to your company’s current and planned activities as well as a discussion of the risk mitigation steps you have or will put in place to address these issues.

Please use the attached worksheet (Attachment E). The unmodified Attachment E must be completed and submitted.

iv) Summary of financial projections Your business plan must include the following elements projected over the 10 year period of the Taxi of Tomorrow program:

• Revenue • Operating expense • Capital investment • Total Expenses • Program expense budget • Program capital investment budget • Cash flow (cumulative NPV and free cash flow) • Operating profit • Return on assets • Break-even analysis • Internal rate of return • Pro forma financial statements, indicating when funding will be received • Balance sheet • Profit and Loss statement (Income Statement) • Cash flow

List any assumptions that you have made, such as current and long-term interest rate, tax rate, discount rate, etc.


Appendix C: Experience Page 1 of 4

1. Introduction To assess whether your company or consortium will be able to meet the engineering and financial obligations of the Taxi of Tomorrow program, you are asked to provide information that will be used to assess your past experience in vehicle engineering and manufacture as well as your past financial performance. The unmodified Attachment D must be completed and submitted. Respondents who fail to submit this required worksheet may be considered non-responsive.

2. Respondent Information Please include the following information about yourselves:

• Current company ownership structure, include whether public or private • Current consortium members or significant partners, where significant is defined as those

deemed critical to business success (e.g. key technical partners, credit providers, and other project partners responsible for critical activities of the business)

• Key suppliers on whom your current business is dependent. • Summary of any labor issues or work stoppages that have taken place at your facilities or

at any of your key suppliers that have caused an interruption to production or to the supply chain in the past 4 years. Please describe what actions were taken to mitigate risk, and what future contingency plans are in place should such a situation occur during the execution of this project.

i) Company history • How long has your company been in business? • If you have sold commercial fleet vehicles in the past, list your top 5 customers and

their percentage of your total sales. • Describe your success on any recent programs similar in scope to the Taxi of

Tomorrow program. • Describe how you have managed variance from planning to actual schedule and price

on previous projects. • Describe your customer satisfaction history and method of addressing customer

satisfaction issues.

ii) Human resources • Please provide a current organizational chart of key personnel in your organization. If

you are currently a consortium or partnership of companies, please identify key responsibilities and hierarchies across the member companies.

• List your total number of employees for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 • Have you had any abnormal attrition over the last four years? You may provide an

explanation of any sudden increase in attrition. • Personnel plan: provide a list showing the total number of current employees, divided

into the following categories. • Executives. • Managers. • Manufacturing personnel. • Engineering. • Total number of personnel.



• Please provide a brief career summary of the current key members of your executive team including their length of service and role within the organization

• Describe any significant turnover or changes to your executive team in the past 4 years.

3. Engineering and manufacturing experience a. Engineering design and development

Please indicate your team’s demonstrated previous experience for design and development of the vehicle and sub-systems shown in attachment C and any existing agreements you have with other suppliers for the supply of this capability, including examples of past vehicles that you or your consortium members have successfully introduced into the marketplace.

b. Manufacturing and vehicle assembly Responders will be expected to demonstrate previous experience in the manufacturing and assembly of commercially available vehicles in low to medium volumes. In addition to this, responders will be expected to demonstrate a current quality control system for manufacturing, assembly and supplier qualification, with evidence of it’s past effectiveness.

c. In-use parts and service support Please describe your current service and support infrastructure using the attached worksheet (Attachment D). Your response should include details of the supply of service manuals, service tools, training and re-certification of service staff, availability of service engineers, and workflow for warranty issues.

4. Financial performance Please describe your current business model, using the attached worksheet (Attachment D) as a guide for providing your responses.

a. Financial History In order to assess the current state of your business, you are requested to provide financial information for the previous four year period. In cases where there is significant year to year variance, you have the option to provide an explanation of the cause of the variance.

Consortia should provide the following financial information for each significant partner. Significant defined as deemed critical to project success.

i) Balance Sheet Please provide a balance sheet for each of the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years.

ii) Sales Please state your sales for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years.

iii) Total capital employed Total capital employed defined as total assets less current liabilities. Please provide data for your company’s total capital employed for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years TCE = Total Assets – Current Liabilities

iv) Return on sales Return on sales helps us to assess your business efficiency and likelihood to continue generating profit. Please provide data for your company’s return on sales for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. ROS = Operating Income / Revenue



v) Return on equity Return on equity is another measure of your company’s profitability history. Please provide data for your company’s return on equity for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. ROE = Net Income / Total Equity

vi) Current ratio Current ratio is an indicator of liquidity or how quickly cash can be raised to purchase assets or respond to emergencies or changing market conditions. Please provide data for your company’s current ratio for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years Current Ratio = Current Assets / Current Liabilities

vii) Quick ratio Quick ratio is another more immediate indicator of liquidity. Please provide data for your company’s quick ratio for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. Quick Ratio = “Quick” Assets / Liabilities Quick Assets = Cash + Marketable Securities + Accounts Receivable Liabilities = Accounts Payable + Bank (short-term) Debt + Accrued Liabilities + Other Current Liabilities

viii) Asset turnover Asset turnover is an indicator of how efficiently your company is using its assets to generate sales. Please provide data for your company’s asset turnover for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. Asset Turnover = Revenue / Total Assets

ix) Return on assets Return on assets is an indicator of how efficiently your company is using its assets to generate profit. The multiple of these two factors is the return on assets. Please provide data for your company’s return on assets for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. ROA = Asset Turnover X Net Margin Asset Turnover = Revenue / Total Assets Net Margin = Net Profit / Revenue

x) Return on capital (Sales / Net working capital ratio) Return on Capital (ROC), also called sales to net working capital ratio, helps to evaluate a company’s credit management performance. Please provide data for your company’s Return on Capital for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. Return on Capital = Revenue / Net Working Capital Net Working Capital = Current Assets – Current Liabilities

xi) Total liabilities / net worth ratio Total liability to net worth ratio is an indicator of financial strength. Here liabilities are defined as total liabilities, including current liabilities and long-term liabilities. Please provide data for your company’s total liabilities to net worth ratio for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. Ratio = Total Liabilities / Net Worth Total Liabilities = Current Liabilities + Long-Term Liabilities Net Worth = Total Assets – Total Liabilities

xii) Debt / equity ratio Debt/equity ratio is an indicator of your company’s financial leverage and the risk assumed by your company. Please provide data for your company’s debt/equity ratio for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. Ratio = Debt / Shareholders Equity Debt = Long-term Debt



xiii) Debt / asset ratio Debt/asset ratio is an indicator of your company’s ability to cover short and long term obligations. Please provide data for your company’s debt/equity ratio for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. Ratio = Total Debt / Total Assets Total Debt = Short-term Debt + Long-term Debt

xiv) Sources of credit and terms (list separately) Please provide data for your company’s sources of credit relevant to the project, and the credit terms.

xv) DUNS number and D&B rating Please provide the nine digit DUNS number, D&B rating, and identify any other rating organizations with whom your company and significant partners are listed (e.g. BBK).

xvi) Credit rating Please provide your company’s and significant partner’s credit rating as rated by Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and/or Fitch. Identify other credit ratings from other organizations if applicable.


Appendix D: Price and Economic Value Page 1 of 1

1. Introduction The economic value of the Taxi of Tomorrow has to be matched to the stakeholder groups who make a living from the taxi industry. The economic equation must satisfy riders, manufacturers, fleet and individual owners, drivers, agents, and the City. Please describe using the categories below how your vehicle will meet all the stakeholder objectives. Worksheets have been provided as Attachment F. Respondents must complete and submit the unmodified attached worksheet (Attachment F). Respondents who fail to submit this required worksheet may be considered non-responsive.

2. Expected Volume The expected sales volume for the Taxi of Tomorrow is approximately 2,650 units per year. (220 / month). The TLC retains the right to adjust the number of medallions during the Taxi of Tomorrow contract, which may change the number of vehicles needed.

When preparing your price information, please include pricing for the following options:

• 2,650 units • 4,000 units • 6,000 units, or the number of units at which the price for the total volume would be

measurably reduced (see 2.c.iii, Appendix 2) For pricing comparison purposes please assume that additional vehicles will include the same content as the yellow cab.

3. Purchase Price and cost Please indicate your expected purchase price and cost for all vehicles and any major option packages proposed at their initial introduction date, and any expected price changes over the life cycle of the vehicle due to incremental improvements or changes in manufacturing cost. Do not include any adjustment for inflation. If the price changes depending on volume, please specify both upper and lower price points, and indicate the volume at which the price changes.

4. Warranty Period Please specify the warranty period in terms of both mileage and time period that you would apply to the vehicles offered as part of the ToT program. Include any provisions for extended coverage that you are offering, and state any specific limitations that would apply.

5. Parts and service cost On the attached worksheet, please provide details of service part costs, service part replacement intervals and the expected cost of the repair parts shown for each of the vehicles you are proposing for the ToT program. You may specify an upper and lower range if preferred.

6. Estimated disposal value Please indicate your expectation of the residual value of the vehicle once it has completed its service as an NYC taxi. For the purposes of comparison, please estimate residual values from 3, 4, and 5 year old vehicles, assuming 70,000 (yellow cab) miles / year.

NYC Taxi of Tomorrow; PIN: 85701000514Appendix E: Projected Vehicle Retirement Schedule

Retirement YearRetirement Month January February March April May June July August September October November December

Alternative Fuel Restriction 17 12 14 16Unresticted 158 194 266 274 280 295 194 174 173 193 203 164

Wheelchair RestrictionTotal 158 194 266 274 280 295 194 191 185 207 219 164


Alternative Fuel Restriction 4Unresticted 226 176 263 271 299 364 230 219 204 148 141 115

Wheelchair Restriction 1 2 2 2 5 4 6Total 226 177 263 271 301 364 232 223 206 153 145 121


Alternative Fuel Restriction 1 2 2 2 1Unresticted Medallions 169 173 302 254 197 203 210 212 206 212 224 143Wheelchair Restriction 4 17 6 5 7 23 17 5

Total 173 190 308 259 204 226 228 219 208 214 225 143

2010

2011

2012

Please note that this vehicle retirement schedule is a projection. Medallion owners may retire taxis sooner, either because the owner prefers it or because the vehicle gets into an accident or is stolen. Certain medallion owners may also apply for extensions based on personal hardship, which would delay the projected retirement date. The exact number of vehicles purchased each month will be determined by actual orders and is not guaranteed by the TLC.

ATTACHMENT A

PROPOSAL COVER LETTER

RFP TITLE: NYC TAXI OF TOMORROW PIN #: 85701000514

Respondent: Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ Tax Identification #: ________________________________ Respondent’s Contact Person: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________________________________________ Telephone #: _________________________________ Respondent’s Authorized Representative: Name: ____________________________________________________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________________________________________ Signature: ____________________________________________________________________________ Date: ___________________________________

Is the response printed on both sides, on recycled paper containing the minimum percentage of recovered fiber content as requested by the City in the instructions to this solicitation?

Yes No

ATTACHMENT B ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDENDA TITLE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: PIN #

NYC TAXI OF TOMORROW 85701000514

INSTRUCTIONS: The Respondent is to complete Part I or Part II of this Form, whichever is applicable, and sign and date this form. This form serves as the respondent’s acknowledgment of the receipt of Addenda to this Request for Proposals (RFP) which may have been issued by the Agency prior to the Proposal Due Date and Time. ____ Part I

Listed below are the dates of issue for each Addendum received in connection with this RFP. Addendum # 1, dated _____________________________________ Addendum # 2, dated _____________________________________ Addendum # 3, dated _____________________________________ Addendum # 4, dated _____________________________________ Addendum # 5, dated _____________________________________ Addendum # 6, dated _____________________________________ Addendum # 7, dated _____________________________________ Addendum # 8, dated _____________________________________ Addendum # 9, dated _____________________________________ Addendum #10, dated _____________________________________ ____ Part II No Addendum was received in connection with this RFP. Respondent Name: Respondent’s Authorized Representative: Name: ____________________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________ Signature: _________________________________________ Date: ____________________________________________


Attachment C: Proposed Vehicle Information

Calendar yearMonth of availability

1 Base vehiclea Actual or target values?c Platform name/ identificationd Existing /current platform?e Original platform introduction date f Annual platform volumeg Platform manufacturing location

2 Body style and dimensionsa Actual / target values?b Body stylec NHTSA classificationd Dimensions Length (inches)e Dimensions Width (inches)f Dimensions Height (inches)g Curb weight (lb)h GVW (lb)i Wheelbase (inches)j Track (inches)

3 Powertrain and drivelinea Actual / target values?b Engine locationc # of cylindersd Capacity (cc)e Fuel typef Power (kW)g Torque (Nm)h Driven axle

4 Hybrid powera Actual / target values?b Power (kW)c Motor typed Battery technologye Battery capacity (Ah)f Driven axle

5 Fuel consumption and emissionsa Actual / target values?b EPA fuel consumption (mpg - City)c EPA fuel consumption (mpg - highway)d Emissions class

Please complete 1 sheet (3 pages) for each calendar year of the contract, starting from the first year you provide a vehicle. If multiple vehicles are proposed in the same year, a sheet must be completed for each vehicle. If there are no changes from one model year to the next, the same sheet and answers may be used as long as the years are specified. This sheet is designed to provide an overview of the vehicle that is offered; please attach supporting documentation to support your proposal.




6 Safety a Actual / target values?b Tested as a taxi? c IIHS Frontd IIHS Reare IIHS Sidef IIHS Roof Crushg NCAP Front (2011 ratings)h NCAP Rear (2011 ratings)i NCAP Side (2011 ratings)j NCAP Rollover (2011 ratings)k FMVSS 214 compliant (prior to 2014 MY)l Additional driver safety features

m Additional rear passenger safety featuresn Additional pedestrian safety features

7 Body stylea Actual / target values?b # of front doorsc Front Door styled # of rear passenger doorse Rear passenger Door stylef # of cargo doorsg Cargo door style

8 Interiora Actual / target values?b # of forward-facing front seatsc # of forward-facing rear seat positionsd # or rear-facing rear seats e # of forward-facing convertible or flip-up seatsf # of rear-facing convertible or flip-up seatsg Max seating capacity (incl driver)h Cargo volume index (SAE J1100)i Passenger cabin volume index (SAE J1100)




9 Taxi contenta Actual / target values?b Partitionc Taximeterd Lamp bare Trouble lightf Driver amenitiesg Taxi technology packageh Driver / passenger communications system i Interior trim materialsj Paint color

10 Accessible contenta Actual / target values?b Wheelchair accessible (ADA compliant)c # of wheelchairs accommodatedd # of additional passenger seating locationse # of convertible seating locationsf Loading ramp location

NYC Taxi of Tomorrow; PIN: 85701000514Page 1 of 5

Ref: a b c d

Ref Vehicle and sub-system design

Vehicle and sub-system development

Vehicle test and durability validation

Vehicle certification and compliance

123456789101112131415161718

1-18 a-d

Styling - interior

Previous Engineering Experience (Years)

Styling - exteriorLayout and packagingBody SuspensionPowertrainTransmission

Attachment D: Vehicle Engineering Capability

Safety systems (airbags, seat belts, etc)Seats and interiorExhaust and after-treatment

Electrical and hybrid systemsFuelCooling

Area of experience

Driveline

Taxi-specific contentAccessible content

Additional Notes (please add row and column reference)

Brakes HVAC

# of additional pages?

Sub-system

In the boxes below, please indicate the number of years you have been actively involved with the vehicle design and engineering activities.

of 5

Ref: e f g h





123456789

101112131415161718

1-18 e-h

Accessible contentTaxi-specific content

Fuel

SuspensionBody Layout and packaging

Electrical and hybrid systemsDrivelineTransmissionPowertrain

Styling - interiorStyling - exterior

Sub-system

Exhaust and after-treatmentSeats and interiorSafety systems (airbags, seat belts, etc)Brakes

Attachment D: Vehicle Engineering CapabilityIn the boxes below, please indicate the number of vehicle programs you have completed.

# of previous programs completed

Area of experience

Additional Notes (please add row and column reference) # of additional pages?

HVACCooling

of 5

Ref: j k l m





123456789

101112131415161718

1-18 j-m

Electrical and hybrid systemsFuel

Driveline

Body SuspensionPowertrainTransmission

Attachment D: Vehicle Engineering CapabilityIn the boxes below, please indicate the number of engineering staff that you currently employ.

# of Engineering Staff

Area of experienceSub-system

Styling - interiorStyling - exteriorLayout and packaging

Cooling HVACBrakes Safety systems (airbags, seat belts, etc)Seats and interiorExhaust and after-treatmentTaxi-specific contentAccessible content


of 5

Ref a b

Ref Sub-system and component

manufacturing

Vehicle assembly and end-of-line test

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

18-36 a-b

In how many different countries do you currently manufacture vehicles or sub-systems?

total # of vehicles / systems produced

Total # people employed in system manufacturing and vehicle assembly

Do your mfg plants currently recover or recycle any waste energy or materials?

Average annual volume by model line

Average annual volume per plant

Total # of manufacturing engineering staff

Total annual production volume

How may vehicles and sub-systems do you currently manufacture specifically for taxi service?

How many of your current model lines do you estimate are routinely converted for taxi use after production?

Current # of system and vehicle lines produced

# of system and vehicle assembly plants

How many years have you held these accreditations?

Metric

Attachment D: Vehicle Manufacturing Capability and Experience

How many vehicles or systems designed for taxi service have you produced in the past

Please tell us how many years you have been manufacturing and assembling vehicles.


How many years have you manufactured vehicles or systems designed for taxi service?

Describe your level of QA accreditation

Into how many different geographical markets do you sell vehicles and sub-systems?

Vehicle Manufacturing Capability and experience

Years of volume production

of 5

a b

Ref USA NYC Metro area

37

38

39

4041

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

37-53 a-b

Service network capacity (hoist-hours / year)

Average # of parts personnel per dealerAverage # of service personnel per dealerAverage dealership size - # of service bays

# of parts distribution centers

# of training facilities

# of mfr service engineers

# of dealers

Size of current in-service fleet (all models)

Metric

System in place for tracking TSB's and FSA's ?

Warranty parts return tracking?

Quality systems in place for tracking service quality and maintaining technician certification?

Certification of independent garages and individuals

Availability of service tools

Availability of training resources

Availability of service manuals

# of service training staff


Vehicle Service and support capability and experience

Attachment D: Vehicle Manufacturing Capability and Experience


Contract start year 2012Metric

2012 2013 2014 2015 20161 Revenue ($k)

2 Operating expense ($k)

3 Capital investment ($k)

4 Total expenses ($k)5 Taxi Program expense budget ($k)

6 Taxi Program capital investment budget ($k)

7 Cash flow (cumulative NPV and free cash flow) $k

8 Operating profit ($k)9 Return On Assets ($k)

10 Break-even analysis

11 Internal rate of return (%)

12 Proforma financial statements, indicating when funding will be received

13Balance sheet

14 Profit and Loss statement (income statement)

Metric

2017 2018 2019 2020 20211 Revenue

2 Operating expense

3 Capital investment

4 Total expenses5 Program expense budget

6 Program capital investment budget

7 Cash flow (cumulative NPV and free cash flow)

8 Operating profit9 Return On Assets

10 Break-even analysis

11 Internal rate of return

12 Proforma financial statements, indicating when funding will be received

13 Balance sheet

14 Profit and Loss statement (income statement)

Attachment E: Business Plan; Financial Projections

Year

Page 1 of 2

Year

1 Balance sheet provided (Yes / No) Y./N2 Sales ($k) $k

3 Total Capital Employed $k

4 Return On Sales $k

5 Return On Equity $k6 Current ratio7 Quick ratio8 Asset turnover $k

9 Return On Assets $k

10 Return on Capital $k

11 Total Liabilities / Net Worth Ratio $k12

Debt / Equity Ratio

13Debt / Asset ratio

14 Sources of credit and terms attached? (list separately) pages

15 DUNS No.16 D&B Rating

17 Other (e.g. BBK);

18 Credit rating 1;

19 Credit rating 2;20 Credit rating 3;

Please provide your detailed business plan as a separate attachment

Metric

Attachment E: Business Plan; Financial Projections

Year

Page 2 of 2

NYC Taxi of Tomorrow; PIN: 85701000514Attachment F: Vehicle Price and Economic Value

M: Y:M: Y:

Purchase Price

MetricExpected Retail price $

(include delivery charges; exclude sales tax &title fees)

1 Base vehicle purchase price ($)2 Optional feature 13 Optional feature 24 Optional feature 3

Consumable service part costsPart Description Service life (k miles) Qty per service Unit of measure Service time (hrs) Expected Retail price $

1 12v battery2 FEAD belt3 Engine air filter4 Brake pads (front)5 Brake rotors (front)6 Brake pads (rear)7 Brake rotors (rear)8 Windshield wipers9 Cabin air filter10 Engine oil11 Engine oil filter12 Transmission fluid13 Transmission oil filter14 Differential / axle oil15 Coolant change16 PAS fluid change17 CV joint - inner18 CV joint - Outer

Repair part costsReplacement time

(hrs) Core charge ($) Process / recycling fee ($) Expected Retail price $

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839 Door mirror

Hood

Rear windowDoor glass - frontDoor glass - rear

Rear fender / quarter panelWindshield

Front fender

Evap canisterRadiator

Front suspension corner - completeRear suspension corner - complete

EGR valveFront strut / damper (Shock absorber)Rear strut / damper (Shock absorber)Wheel bearings - front cornerWheel bearings - rear cornerBody shell - complete

Front bumper assyRear bumper assyFront door - completeRear door - completeTrunk lid / tailgate

A/C compressor

Exhaust system - without after-treatmentExhaust after-treatment system

PAS pumpHeadlamp assySide marker lampTail lamp assyA/C condenserElectric cooling fan

Engine (complete)Transmission (complete)

Part Description

Hybrid battery packBattery controllerWater pumpStarter motorFuel pump module

Final year of availabilityIntroduction date MMM-YYYYVehicle model

Description

Calendar year:

ATTACHMENT G AFFIRMATION

The undersigned Respondent affirms and declares that said Respondent is not in arrears to the City of New York upon debt, contract or taxes and is not a defaulter, as surety or otherwise, upon obligation to the City of New York, and has not been declared not responsible, or disqualified, by any agency of the City of New York, nor is there any proceeding pending relating to the responsibility or qualification of the respondent or bidder to receive public contracts except: _______________________________________________________________________. Full name of Respondent:___________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________ City _________________________ State __________________ Zip Code ___________ CHECK ONE AND INCLUDE APPROPRIATE NUMBER: A - _____ Individual or Sole Proprietorship* SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER _ _ _ -_ _ -_ _ _ _ B - _____ Partnership, Joint Venture or other non-incorporated organization EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C - _____ Corporation (If a corporation place seal below) EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ * Under the Federal Privacy Act the furnishing of Social Security Numbers by bidders on City Contracts is voluntary. Failure to provide a Social Security Number will not result in a bidder's disqualification. Social Security Numbers will be used to identify bidders, respondents or contractors to ensure their compliance with laws, to assist the City in enforcement of laws as well as to provide the City a means of identifying businesses that seek City Contracts.

ATTACHMENT H

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AFFIRMATION The undersigned swears or affirms that neither respondent, nor any member or employee of respondent, nor any consultant or other private organization retained by or compensated by respondent, was involved in the development or issuance of the Request for Information issued by the TLC on February 20, 2008, other than as a member of the TLC Taxi of Tomorrow Stakeholder Committee, or the development or issuance of this Request for Proposals, by work with TLC, Ricardo, Inc., Smart Design, or Design Trust for Public Space. The undersigned swears or affirms that neither respondent, nor any member or employee of respondent, nor any consultant or other private organization retained by or compensated by respondent, has obtained or will obtain confidential information about the Taxi of Tomorrow project from TLC, Ricardo, Inc., Smart Design, or Design Trust for Public Space. The undersigned swears or affirms that respondent will inform TLC immediately if respondent learns after the signing of this affirmation of a conflict of interest, as defined in section IV of this RFP and as described above. _____________________________________________________________________. Signature Date Full name of Respondent:___________________________________________________ Notarized by _____________________________________________________________ Date Notary stamp:

ATTACHMENT I

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE RSVP FORM

Pre-Proposal Conference for NYC Taxi of Tomorrow

January 14, 2010, 10:00 AM

100 Gold Street

8th Floor

New York, NY The following individuals will be attending the Pre-Proposal Conference for NYC Taxi of Tomorrow either in person or via the web: Name Company Title Email

Name Company Title Email Phone Web or In Person

Exhibit 2

26 RICARDO QUARTERLY REVIEW • Q4, 2005

Ricardo News

On September 26 Renault formallyopened its new Noise Vibration

and Harshness (NVH) unit devoted tothe acoustic treatment of powertrains,located at the site of its TechnicalCentre in Lardy, approximately 45kmto the south of Paris.

One of the most state-of-the-artfacilities of its kind in Europe, the unitdraws together in a single centre NVHtesting and development technologiesand processes for all of theautomaker’s powertrain and vehicleengineering teams. The unit isequipped with both powertrain andvehicle semi-anechoic cells togetherwith advanced testing and analyticalequipment and software. It is intendedto enable Renault to improve the noisequality of powertrains across its entirerange.

Ricardo has supported Renault astechnology partner from the inceptionof the project to develop the new NVHunit, assisting from the early stages inthe specification of the test facilities. Adetailed example of this was in thedesign of the standard powertrain testpallets to be used at the facility. For

Ricardo helps with new Renault NVH facilitygeneral performance and durabilitytesting, pallet design is acomparatively straightforward processof ensuring that a generic mountingpackage is provided which is capableof accepting each powertrain and itsancillary components, together withthe requisite actuators and testequipment. For NVH testing however,the pallet system needs to beengineered in such a manner that it issufficiently stiff so as not to influencethe vibratory and auditorymeasurements, while at the same timeproviding sufficiently clear access tothe engine for instrumentation.

Meeting dynamic vibration targets

Starting from an initial design the teamdeveloped the structure to meet itsdynamic vibration targets usingdynamic finite element analysis. Thestructure was manufactured and testedin prototype form and a dampingstrategy developed to fine-tune itsoperational performance.Subsequently the first production palletwas manufactured and the design washanded over to Renault’s in-housemanufacturing team.

During the development andcommissioning phase of the newfacility, Ricardo has also providedtechnology transfer in testingprocesses and procedures. Theprimary objective of Ricardo’sinvolvement at this stage was to

ensure that Renault engineers were ina position to utilise the advancedsemi-anechoic powertrain and vehicletest cells and associated NVHtechnologies as soon ascommissioning was complete. Testingprocesses were documented in detailby Ricardo based on the company’sown best practices, and training intheir implementation was provided toRenault engineers and technicians bya Ricardo team initially at Ricardo UKfacilities and subsequently based on-site at Lardy. The Renault and Ricardoengineers worked in partnership forthe initial NVH test and developmentprogrammes run at the new unit inorder to develop and refine theseengineering processes for maximumoperational effectiveness.

With the Ricardo on-site teamcontinuing to support Renault’s ownengineers and technicians in thecommissioning and operation of thefacility, Renault is firmly on a path tofurther improve its already wellrespected positioning as anautomotive brand synonymous withhigh standards of NVH. Thesignificance of the new NVH facilitywas underscored at the inaugurationceremony by Kazumasa Katoh,Renault senior vice president ofpowertrain engineering: “With theNVH unit, Renault breaks new groundin the control of vibro-acousticphenomena. It will allow us to define a‘sound identity’ for Renaultpowertrains, the objective being, at avery early stage, to fully work noisequality into the powertrains' geneticmake-up.”

Renault’s new NVH unit at Lardy (above andleft) is equipped with both powertrain andvehicle semi-anechoic cells together withadvanced testing and analytical equipment and software.

Exhibit 3

Summer 2004

HotstuffHotstuffRenault chooses Ricardo as development partner for its exciting turbochargedRenaultsport Mégane 225

Torque vectoring

Interviews

Torque vectoringRicardo technology for SUV stability — and fun

Heavy dutyHeavy dutyMeeting EPA 2010 standards

Cost downCost downIdentifying savings to improve margins

InterviewsBernd Bohr, head of Bosch AutomotiveLarry Burns, GM’s fuel cell enthusiast

Hot stuffRenault’s X84 Mégane programme made industry history, withseven mainstream models developed in-house and launched injust 18 months. Ricardo was given complete responsibility todevelop and deliver the prestigious high-performance MéganeRenaultsport 225 version which, as Tony Lewin discovers,involved not just a potent engine and radical chassis upgrade butdesign, trim, seating and manufacturing too

8 MÉGANE RENAULTSPORT 225 Summer 2004Ricardo Quarterly Review

In an automotive industry fond of talking in the language of codewords and obscure project numbers, the name X84 commandsespecially high regard. Mention this three-character combination

to any expert in the sphere of manufacturing, engineeringdevelopment or programme management – even at a competitorcompany – and he or she will nod respectfully, professing admirationfor a job well done and the achievement of what, by commonconsent, has been a major feat of industrial organisation.

For X84 is the project code under which Renault developed itsnew family of Mégane models, a range extending to anunprecedented seven different body styles and rolled out on to themarket with equally unprecedented speed: just eighteen monthsseparated the start of production of the first versions launching therange and the final models completing the line-up in March 2004.What is more, the whole seven-model set was developed within thespace of 29 months – another sector record.

No other automaker has ever brought such a broad spectrum ofrelated models to market in such a short space of time. Directlypaving the way for that world-class feat, Renault undertook anintense examination of its own internal processes: crucially, new

and carefully honed procedures allowed this massiveprogramme to be successfully steered through its

many stages without totally swamping thecompany’s engineering resources or

adversely affecting the

development of new models in the many other sectors in whichRenault competes.

By March 2004, with the seven-seater, long-wheelbase GrandScénic released for production, the Mégane line-up becamecomplete: it now comprises the original five-door Hatch and three-door Sport Hatch, the innovative Coupé-Cabriolet with its foldingrigid glass roof, the Sport Saloon and Sport Tourer wagon on theextended wheelbase, the five-seater Scénic minivan and, of course,its lengthened Grand Scénic derivative.

Each of these seven core models had to be separately designed,developed, engineered, tested and calibrated; each had to stand onits own merits in Europe’s highly competitive lower-medium B-segment where Renault managers were confident that thecombined offering had the potential to become Europe’s top-sellingmodel range.

Yet from the early stages of the programme it was clear that whilethe company’s highly organised in-house vehicle development staffhad sufficient capacity to undertake the seven core modelprogrammes, the specialised nature of the sports version meant thatits development would be handled by Renault’s high-performancedivision, Renault Sport Technologies (RST), based in Les Ulis, in thesouth of Paris. The task was all the more demanding as RST wasalso to manufacture the Mégane sport derivative – on the sameassembly line as the already popular Clio Renaultsport 182 andClio V6 Renaultsport 255.

Summer 2004 MÉGANE RENAULTSPORT 225 9Ricardo Quarterly Review

Low volume, high profileSuch niche models are ideally suited to thespecialised skills a leading independentdevelopment organisation like Ricardo canprovide. What Renault Sport needed was aturnkey programme delivering a completeand polished high-performance car into asmooth production start-up, but withminimum load on its own already hard-pressed staff. Yet while the build numberswere to be low – a maximum of 25-30 a day– the stakes were high: top-performingmodels such as the planned 225horsepower Renaultsport Mégane act ashigh-profile brand heroes and have a majorinfluence on the public perception (and thussales) of the commercially vital large volumemainstream models. World-classengineering and programme delivery werethus essential requirements, more especiallyso as the great success of the smaller ClioRenaultsport 172 and 182 had helped pushcustomer expectations up to very highlevels.

“At Renault Sport Technologies we wanteda partner able to undertake the engine andvehicle development at the same time,”remembers Dominique Huet, programmemanager at Renault. “That combination ofskills is pretty rare. The final choice fell onRicardo because of their savoir-faire inengine work and the strength of their vehicleteam based in Leamington.”

It was in a series of meetings betweenRenault and Ricardo beginning as early as2000 that the outline features of a possiblehigh performance derivative began to takeshape. What Ricardo UK managing directorClive Hickman describes as a “broad-ranging request for quotation” wassystematically refined over a period of sixmonths as both sides did exploratory workon the project and used their findings toassess the feasibility of the various solutionsand determine a closer final specification.

Unusually, the specification called for

Ricardo to take responsibility for thecomplete vehicle programme rather thansimply work on the engine to provide therequired 225 horsepower. Though thehorsepower hurdle was in itself a significantone – at that time the target was significantlymore than any existing competitor in themarket – the engine development work laycomfortably within Ricardo’s acknowledgedarea of expertise; it was by linking this workwith the development of the sports model’scomplete chassis systems and its stylingand trim upgrades that the programmewould break new ground for both Ricardoand Renault. Adding yet more to theprogramme content was Ricardo’sresponsibility for establishing themanufacturing feasibility of all thedesign enhancements,ensuring the smooth start-up of production anddealing with anymanufacturing issuesuntil Job One plus90 days. Effectively,Ricardo would beresponsible for thedelivery ofeverything – eitherdirectly, or viaoutside suppliers –involved with theexciting new vehicle.

The task, asprogramme director andMD of Ricardo VehicleEngineering Bob Allsopp readilyconcedes, was a challenging one:

“This is very much a niche product: we’retalking about a maximum of 30 cars a day,so it was important that the business casewas commercially viable at thesecomparatively low volumes. The RenaultSport team was always very focused onensuring that the engineering requirementssupported the financial criteria laid down byRenault.”

Even at this stage, observes Allsopp,Ricardo was still competing against otherengineering services providers and workingat its own cost and risk: indeed, seriouswork, including mule and prototype vehiclebuild, had begun in January 2001, thecontract being finally awarded in April 2002.

Programme definitionHaving established in principle that Ricardowould deliver a high-profile, high-performance Mégane with best-in-class ride,refinement and handling, the two companiesbegan the phase exploratoire to set thetechnical targets for the vehicle anddetermine the best ways of achieving thosetargets; Renault’s famous Technocentre nearParis would complete the aesthetic designpackage, but Ricardo would be responsible

for sourcing the changed items usingRenault’s existing supply base whereverpossible.

The move into the area of style and trimwas not as intimidating as it sounds, notesAllsopp. Ricardo already had extensiveexperience allied to powerful CFDsoftware in aerodynamics,allowing confident predictionof high-speed stabilityissues and theairflow

performance of the new front bumperdesign, and the recruitment of French-speaking engineers made a major differencein dealing with interior and exterior trimsuppliers including major Tier One providerssuch as Faurecia for the sports seats andPlastic Omnium for the bumper systems.

Managing next-tier suppliers“It was always part of the turnkeyprogramme that all these systems would beoutsourced,” explains Allsopp. “Dealing withFrench suppliers was something that wasnew to us: it took some managing, but ransmoothly once our French engineers wereon board. Renault Sport is a very smallgroup: they have to rely either onmainstream Renault engineers or theirnominated engineering partners – RSTalways referred to us as their engineeringpartners. You have to remember that therewas no spare resource at Renault as theywere launching seven cars at the same time.”

Once the design of the body and interiortrim components marking out the Mégane225 as the sports variant had been frozenby Renault’s Technocentre, Ricardo had the


“We wanted a partner ableto undertake the engineand vehicle development atthe same time – thatcombination of skills ispretty rare. The final choicefell on Ricardo because oftheir savoir-faire in enginework and the strength oftheir vehicle team.”

– Dominique Huet,programme manager,

Renault Sport

responsibility for using the digital data fromthe styling clays todevelop the fully

definedengineering

drawings with thesuppliers. Following approval,

these drawings were then used formanufacture of both prototype andproduction tools and parts.

By early 2002 the engineeringspecification of the base engine had beenfirmed up (see panel on page 12) utilisingthe Clio 172 crankshaft and a revisedturbocharger. Faced with the challenge ofputting 225 horsepower and over 300 Nm oftorque through the front wheels, Ricardo hadproposed a highly innovative dual axis frontsuspension which was designed to eliminatethe potentially dangerous handling conditionof torque steer – an acknowledged problemon high performance front wheel drivevehicles.

“We even went to the trouble of buildingtwo mule cars based on the old Mégane todemonstrate the effectiveness of this uniquesuspension geometry,” recalls Allsopp.“Renault quickly saw the advantages of theconcept, especially after we had gone on tofit engines delivering the requiredperformance levels.”

The horsepower jump from the 165 of thedonor engine to the 225 in the RenaultsportMégane 225 was a big uplift for a volumeengine. Nevertheless, the raised output leveland how they would get there was achallenge relished by the Ricardo engineteam. “Yet,” says programme managerRobin Thatcher, “we knew it was do-ablebased on our predictive work in theexploratory phase.”

“What we then had to do, which is againpart of Ricardo’s expertise, was to establisha validation plan at the increased power andtorque that gave Renault the confidence thatthey’d got a very durable product,” addedThatcher. That involved putting together forboth engine and vehicle a validationprogramme that focused on high enginespeed and high performance (a verydifferent duty cycle to the normal type ofvehicle) to ensure the product to be

delivered was saleable and durable.

Monthly programme reviewsAlternating each month betweenRenault Sport’s offices innorthern France and Ricardo inthe UK Midlands, monthlyprogramme reviews broughttogether all the disciplinesinvolved in the project – not justengineering and testingspecialists from both Renault

and Ricardo but Renault’s salesand marketing representatives and

also engineers from the main Renaultorganisation. The fact that the upratedengine was to be built in the mainstream,high-volume Cléon plant meant the engineprogramme was run under GMP, the mainRenault powertrain group, further adding tothe reporting channels involved.

“Here in Britain the programme reviewstended to be engineering reviews,”remembers Bob Allsopp. “So we would gothrough, say, the chassis systems, thethermal systems or the underbonnetinstallations. But once we’d got up andrunning with the main programme therewould also be ride and drives very frequentlywith both teams to evaluatewhere we were and whatprogress we were making.”

Ride and drives were acrucial element in developingthe Mégane 225 as athoroughly rewarding driver’scar, yet one which would alsobe comfortable, refined andsafe on the limit. These eventswere held in many locations,including Renault’s provingground, in a location betweenRouen and Paris.

Here, the vehicles would beassessed against the productplanners’ stipulations which,according to Allsopp, were veryclear indeed: “We actuallystarted off wanting the car tosound far more racy, whereasRenault product planningpositioned it as safe and funand with a sporty feel – they didnot want it as narrowly focusedand uncompromising as some

of its competitors.“Our objective was to have a car that was

fun and safe,” explains Renault Sport’sDominique Huet. “Fun like the Clio 172, andpredictable like the Audi S3 – and of coursethe arrival of the Focus RS as a competitorhad shifted the cursor during the course ofthe programme.”

In the words of Ricardo UK MD Clive


Ricardo managed suppliers for instrumentation andinterior trim (above), as well as seating and exteriortrim for sporting Mégane version.

“Renault was so impressedby Ricardo’s thermalmanagement solutions onthe Mégane 225 that theyhave asked us to validatesimilar thermal solutions forfuture high-volume models.”

– Bob Allsopp, MD,Ricardo Vehicle

Engineering

Hickman it was to be a “car you would wantto drive every day of the week, not just onSaturdays and Sundays.”

Both the Renault Sport sound quality andthe dynamic performance of the car wererecognised as being extremely important butchallenging deliverables. Following acomplex programme of test and analysis theexperts professed themselves delighted withthe resulting sound quality. There was,however, much more debate about theachievement of the required dynamicperformance. Extensive work had been doneon the geometry of the innovative front

suspension, tuning of the steering system,springs, dampers, roll bars and tyres.However, it was not until last minute tuningwas complete for the suspension andsubframe bushes that satisfaction was finallypronounced.

Early on in the programme, Ricardo CFDsimulations using the company’s VECTISsoftware had shown that with the much-raised performance, aerodynamic issueswould come increasingly into play. With theaid of VECTIS an aero package wasdeveloped in the shape of a very smallspoiler on the back of the tailgate, and theresults were vindicated with excellentstability as soon as the first correctly-bodiedcamouflaged prototypes could be tested athigh speed in late 2002. The CATIA data forthe spoiler’s critical dimensions was thensent to Renault’s designers near Paris, whoadjusted its appearance only very slightly:on the final production car the tiny lip on thetailgate is hard to spot at first glance, but itseffect is important.

Gateway requirementsThe gateways – programme assessmentpoints – that Renault set were rigorous andchallenging: there were no soft options,according to Ricardo. The gateways includefixed criteria – vehicle attributes which canlead into subjective areas such as ride and

handling, steering feel and NVH (noise,vibration and harshness) – and performancetargets like engine torque, engine power,emissions and top speed which are objectivein nature. There are also investment andcost targets that have to be met througheach gateway: the whole business model isreviewed each time, not just the engineeringof the project.

While costs and timing were clearly underconstant assessment, one engineeringdeliverable stood out as the most ambitioustarget of all: “Ultimately,” says CliveHickman, “ride and handling was the hardestof the subjective targets to reach – and ofthese it was probably handling that was themost difficult to achieve. To a certain extentthe target book sought to establish thehandling suitable for a road car, butultimately the vehicle was going to be usedby people on a test track, so we had tomake some detailed changes to optimise thehandling performance.”

“In the end, Renault’s overall X84programme director, Carlos Tavares,appointed one man as his delegatedauthority for all ride and handling matters,”recalls Bob Allsopp. “He is a brilliantengineer, tough and without any English,which didn’t make it any easier. But if heliked it we got a tick in the box – and if hedidn’t we knew we had more work to do.”

165 horsepower engine uprated to 225

For a company like Ricardo it might seem acomparatively straightforward engineeringtask to take an existing and well proven 165horsepower two-litre engine and end up witha sports powerplant developing 225 hp.However, for the Renaultsport Megane 225the task was not quite so straightforward:because the sports derivative would only bebuilt in low numbers an entirely new enginewould be prohibitively expensive to produce.So instead the team set about achieving therequired level of performance while minimis-ing the number of new components andmaximising the use of carry-over parts fromboth the original base engine and others in thecurrent Renault range.

In addition to this, the technical direction ofthe programme was closely aligned to theneeds of the manufacturing plant. The 225 hpengine was to be produced on the same auto-mated production line used for a range of dif-ferent Renault engines in mixed sequence. Inintroducing a new engine – and particularly aniche product to be produced in small quanti-ties – it was essential that disruption was keptto an absolute minimum and for this reasonthe manufacturing engineers were involvedfrom the outset.

The initial stages of the development pro-gramme involved a thorough review of thebase engine. Every aspect of the originaldesign was investigated in terms of the sup-porting design calculations and simulationwork such as finite element and computationalfluid dynamics analyses. This work quicklyindicated the components of the base enginewhich needed to be changed. A new tur-bocharger was specified to exactly the samepackage dimensions as that on the baseengine but capable of delivering the highboost levels required to achieve 225 hp.

Subtle design changes were also made to

the reciprocating components in order towithstand the increased mechanical and ther-mal loading. The top-deck thickness of thepiston was increased for example, as wasthat of the connecting rod shank.

For the crankshaft the team chose to gofurther and select that of the Clio 172 engineas a replacement. The increased thermalloading of the more powerful engine requiredthe selection of an intercooler and anenlarged radiator, again both sourced fromwithin existing Renault parts numbers.

Durability testing of the engine and vehiclewas based upon mission profiles developedjointly with Renault. This enabled the team tofocus on areas and patterns of loading criti-cal to the durability of the product in realworld operation typical of this type of nichevehicle. According to John Tovell, ProjectDirector for Ricardo on the 225 engine, “Itwas particularly pleasing just how robust thebase engine was under durability testing –the base structure and carry-over compo-nents performed extremely well at the newrating, and enabled design changes to bekept to a minimum.”

The success of the 225 engine team inmaximising the level of carry over from thebase engine is immediately apparent fromvisual inspection, where only an expert wouldbe able to spot the differences between thebase engine and the up-rated product.

Powerhouse rules


Ricardo responsible for delivery ofcomplete vehicleChassis, including brakes, steering,suspensionInnovative front suspensionEngine upgradeThermal systemsInterior trim specification and sourcingSeatingExterior trim and aerodynamicsBumper systemsManaging T2 suppliersManufacturing implementationProduction quality assurance

Key programme achievements

Other challenges included getting the rightsteering feel through the electric PAS system(where, says Allsopp, supplier TRW did a“sterling job”) and fine-tuning the car’sbalance for high-speed track driving. Thiscalled for a particularly sophisticatedcombination of characteristics rarely foundon the same vehicle: very safe but stillrewarding handling for normal roadconditions where understeer had to be thelimit condition, and the ability to maintain ahigh degree of driver enjoyment on theracetrack where Renault knew the leadingmagazines would be evaluating the car.

Thermal problems solved throughsoftwareAnother issue during the Mégane’sdevelopment was that of thermalmanagement under the bonnet. With theengine developing so much power in sucha confined space the excess heat wasdifficult to deal with and at one stage afterhot-weather testing in Spain Ricardoidentified no fewer than 153 thermalproblems. Systematically and with theassistance of simulation in VECTIS, theseproblems were solved one by one, andRenault was so impressed by the resultsthat it has gone on to ask Ricardo tovalidate similar thermal solutions for futurehigh-volume model lines.

Through a constant process ofassessment, evaluation, engineeringrefinement and re-evaluation the combinedteams honed the complete design andgenerated results which saw it safelythrough the many additional stages whichseparate initial engineering approval andthe final sign-off giving the green light forcustomer sales to begin. Throughout,Mégane 225s were being put through themost punishing durability and extremeclimate routines all over the world, as wellas certification testing, parts approval andtype approval.

The biggest hurdle in terms of Ricardoresponsibility, according to programmemanager Robin Thatcher, was the Renault

gateway known as AMPSS – effectivelythe engineering sign-off of the completevehicle. In principle, changes after thisstage of the programme should not occur.However, the opportunity was taken tomake final adjustments to the dynamics ofthe vehicle, and to perform re-validationwhere necessary.

The final two hurdles, labelled AF andAC, are confirmations that,respectively, the vehicle is capableof meeting all quality expectationswhen built at the planned line rate,and that the manufactured

vehicles conform in every sense to what isneeded by the commercial sales network,triggering activities such as the presslaunch and dealer presentations. Again,the consistent hard work of the 60-strongRicardo team and their Renaultcounterparts led to a smooth passagethrough these gateways.

RewardsFor all concerned, the payback for all thedesign and development time and the long

days and weeks of testing has come inmany and exciting forms. On a vitallyimportant level the production start-upat Renault Sport’s Dieppe plant with

strong support from Ricardo proved

Innovative front suspension design

Developed by Ricardo from an idea originatingfrom a joint Renault Ricardo consultation, theinnovative dual axis front suspensionovercomes many of the stability problemssuffered by high powered front-wheel-drivecars. Normal MacPherson strut frontsuspension designs rely on the rotation of thespring strut between the top mount and thelower L-arm (3) to achieve steering, thus pre-defining the steering axis and making itdifficult to achieve the short distance betweenthe hub centre and the steering axis (knownas the offset) that is key to interference-freesteering and straightline stability under hardacceleration.

By adding a new, fixed lightweight aluminiumupright (2) at the base of the suspension strutand moving the steered hub carrier (1)outboard, Ricardo’s designers were able tochoose the optimum steering axis to minimisethe hub-level offset.The addition of an anti-rotation link (4)secures the upright so that the suspensionstrut no longer rotates when the steering isturned.Additional changes for the MéganeRenaultsport 225 chassis include a cross-brace between the front subframe arms tostiffen the frontal structure, while at the rearstiffer springs, dampers, bump stops andtransverse torsion beam serve to achieveoptimum roll control during sporty driving.

1 Hub carrier2 Upright3 Rectangular lower arm4 Anti-rotation link

EngineEmissions standard Euro 4Engine code F4Rt 774Capacity 1998ccMax power 225 bhp @ 5500 rpmMax torque 300 Nm @ 3000 rpmPerformanceMax speed 236 km/h0-100 km/h 6.5 secEU combined economy 8.8 l/100km

The Mégane in figures


Completechassis package

Which factors allowed Ricardo to win thiscontract from Renault? Was it the Ricardotrack record, or what you were offering onthis programme?It was absolutely this programme. One of thethings Renault said to me at the time was thatthey knew we could deliver the engine – thatwas never a risk to them – but this was thefirst time Ricardo had delivered a completevehicle, and that was a big risk. At that stagewe didn’t have a track record on completevehicles, so we had to persuade them wecould do the job – and because of the calibreof the Ricardo people Renault Sport wasprepared to take the risk.

Was the full scope of the programmeestablished right at the beginning?They came to us with a broad-ranging requestfor quotation. Over a period of about sixmonths that broad range was refined, duringthe concept phase where both companies weretrying things out to refine the final specification.

So Ricardo was already working on theprogramme before the contract had beenestablished?Yes – it’s part of our investment for the future.It’s the same with any job: you can’t win aprogramme of this magnitude without making alevel of investment in the definition of theproduct. Part of that comes down to helping todevelop the specification, helping to set targets,and ensuring that you’ve got the right set ofsuppliers to deliver the component parts intothe system.

Were you competing with other suppliers orRenault’s in-house teams at this stage?It’s very rare to be working in a single-sourceenvironment: we were up against othercompanies, but we weren’t competing againstin-house because the new Mégane platformdidn’t exist when we first started. At Renaultthey were running in parallel as fast as theycould to get the seven main Méganes into themarket: the Mégane Sport is a low volumevehicle but one which gives an important haloeffect for the mainstream product.

Did Ricardo do the whole vehicle,everything involved in all the changes?All of the changes were the responsibility ofRicardo, but we did work with other partners todeliver some of those. So, for example, whilstthe brake system was our responsibility to bringinto production, Brembo was our partner andultimate component supplier. In the same wayFaurecia supplied the seating under our

guidance and Plastic Omnium provided thefront and rear bumpers. We worked with TRWon the electric power steering: they did theelectrical balancing of the system, which is nodifferent to any other vehicle programme as thesuppliers have to have an engineering input intothe programme.

Who decides, for instance, what kind ofsteering feel to go for?A target book is established at the beginning ofthe programme and the team then works tomeet those targets. Ultimately, things likesteering, handling, ride, noise and vibration,which are subjective assessments, are verifiedthrough ride and drive clinics with the customer.

What special skills has Ricardo brought tothis programme?I think the key skill that others probably couldnot have provided was the programmemanagement expertise. I believe that Renaultwould say that we did a very good job to getthe product launched when we did – despiteany doubts they might have had before westarted.

Does this success open new doors forRicardo?One of the things we now have in our portfoliothat we didn’t have when we began offeringcomplete vehicle engineering is a number ofvehicle programmes that have been deliveredsuccessfully to market and which have beenwell received by the market. There are theBMW MINI, the Hummer H2, the Jaguar X400(X-TYPE) diesel, and now the RenaultsportMégane 225. Those four vehicles haveestablished a strong reputation for Ricardo,and we can now use the combination of all ofthose programmes to win the next programme– whoever the customer may be.

Clive Hickman,Managing Director,Ricardo UK


smooth and largely uneventful, anyisolated issues being quickly solved to theevident satisfaction of Renault; Renault’sfinancial and product planners wereevidently satisfied, too, with a programmedelivered on time and within the financialconstraints of the project, and with allquality and performance requirements metor exceeded.

But perhaps most important of all havebeen the independent voices praising notjust the management of the programmebut the exciting vehicle that it delivered tothe Renault Mégane range. Press reportshave been effusive in their praise for thepower, speed, ride and handling of the new225 version, reserving special acclaim forthe car’s mechanical refinement andsmoothness at speed – proof indeed thatRicardo had fulfilled the precise brief laiddown by Renault at the beginning of theprogramme.

Exhibit 4

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Transmission Design

The Winning Formula

Iain Wight

Business Development Director

Ricardo High Performance Transmission Products

November 2006

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Agenda

q Introduction to Ricardo

q Gearbox Design Techniques

q Differentials

q Testing

q Manufacturing

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Ricardo is focused on the delivery of advanced automotive technology as a core competence

q Founded in 1915 by Harry (later Sir Harry) Ricardo to provide an engine design and development service. In subsequent years Ricardo have been noted for the development of innovative solutions such as:– Breakthrough tank engines – The Octane Rating Scale– Jet engine fuel system (with Frank Whittle) – Voyager aircraft engine development– Pioneer of small bore HSDI & G-DI engines – Le Mans winning transmissions for Audi

q Our primary customers are the product development and research organisations of the world’s vehicle manufacturers. We also provide licences for our advanced engineering software products, enabling these same customers to use Ricardo technology in their own research and product development activities. Our reputation for technology and quality of service is also well known in the arena of motorsport, where we serve leading teams in all major race formulae

q Organized into distinct complementary product groups:– Engine Engineering (Gasoline and Diesel) – Driveline and Transmissions Engineering– Vehicle Engineering – Strategic Consulting– Control and Electronics – Software– High Performance Transmission Products

q Investment in people and research ensures Ricardo are leaders in the development and deployment of new technologies. For example the multi-award winning i-MoGen (intelligent Motor Generator) Mild Hybrid vehicle demonstrator was developed as a Ricardo research programme in collaboration with Valeo.

History

Customers

ProductGroups

Technology Focus

Ricardo Group

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Ricardo is one of the world's leading automotive consulting companies

Established Success Factors

Global Client Base

International Presence

Value-Adding Capabilities

q Focused on value-adding servicesq Solving key industry issuesq Programme delivery as a core competenceq Investment in people and technologyq Critical mass with revenues exceeding €230m

and over 1700 peopleq Independent and long established (1915)

UK Germany

USA

Product Engineering

Products/Production

StrategyConsulting Strategy development

Engines

VehiclesMotor sportTransmissions

& drivelines

SoftwareControl & Electronics

High performanceexhaust systems

Technicalsupport service

ProductStrategyResearch &

Development

Product development

Manufacturing &supply chain

Procurement strategy

Acquisition & merger support

Ricardo Group

http://www.iselllandrovers.com/images/Lr_logo.gif

http://www.monh.org/events/fmc.jpg

http://www.lacentrale.fr/pro/C000342/images/logo.gif

http://www.gm.com/

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Ricardo has facilities and offices in the key automotive centres of the world

Ricardo Inc.

Ricardo Prague

Ricardo China

Ricardo GmbHRicardo UK Ltd

Ricardo Korea

Ricardo Japan

Detroit

Chicago

Shoreham

Cambridge

Leamington

Schwäbisch Gmünd

Tokyo

ShanghaiMain Engineering Facilities

Ricardo Corporate OfficesRicardo Representative Offices

Ricardo Italia Ricardo India

Prague

Ricardo France

Ricardo Group

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Ricardo’s Midlands Technical Centre houses a range of engineering and manufacturing capabilities

q Ricardo Midlands Technical Centre (MTC) houses over 350 highly qualified engineers covering all major disciplines:

– Computer aided engineering

– Mechanical design

– Test and development

– Controls and electronics

– Vehicle build and prototyping

– Project management

– Transmission testing

– Transmission manufacturing

– Transmission assembly

Profile of Ricardo

Ricardo MTC

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Ricardo designs, develops and manufactures a broad range of successful motorsport transmissions – we set the benchmark

Projects DeliveredMotorsport

Sports Cars: Audi R8

Rally: Ford Focus RS WRC ‘06

Raid: Mitsubishi Pajero Evolution

• Aggressive technical targets achieved• Proved that reliability is achievable at these

performance levels• Most successful sports car in history

• 8,000km durability target• Novel technical features to reduce weight and improve

performance• Exceptional success record in the Dakar Rally

• Rapid design and development phase of a highly complex transmission system

• Concurrent rig and vehicle durability programme

High Performance Transmission Products

Open-Wheel

• High tech, ‘value for money’ transmission• Selected for four major race series: Nissan WS, IRL

Pro, Renault World Series and Grand Prix Masters• Over 150 units supplied to date

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

The Bugatti Veyron and Ford GT transmissions showcase Ricardo’s high performance transmission capabilities

Recently Delivered ProjectsLow Volume Production

Bugatti Veyron Ford GT

• Design, development, prototype and production supply of 6 speed manual transaxle

• Fast-track 20 month programme start to first unit• Class-leading performance targets achieved• Production build rate c.52/wk• Transfers 550hp / 500 lb ft• Helps to deliver 0-60 mph in 3.3s

• Design, development, prototype and production supply of 7 speed DCT including controls and electronics

• Production build rate c.2/wk; total 300 units

• Transfers 1001ps / 1250Nm

• Helps to deliver 0-100 km/h in 2.5s and 0-400 km/h in 55 s

Both programmes delivered to the customer’s product development and quality systems requirements


©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

An integrated approach using the right team, tools and processes is critical to the successful delivery of our motorsport programmes

Approach

ManufactureDesignIntegrated Capability

Experienced TeamRicardo’s Motorsport engineering team

comprises a small number of highly skilled designers. Continuity of the team has driven

a very open, collaborative environment

Effective use of ToolsA combination of concurrent engineering

and retrospective analysis is used to balance the conflicting requirement of a time constrained design phase and the

requirement for a “right first time” solution

Process OwnershipThe working culture fostered between

engineering and manufacturing encourages ownership of the part and / or process

Continuous CommunicationThe proximity of the engineering and

manufacturing teams facilitates both formal and informal discussions / reviews during the concept and detail design phases to

optimise both design for purpose and design for manufacture

Motorsport


©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Topology Optimisation

q Ricardo is highly experienced in optimizing structures to provide the best strength to weight balance. Topology optimization can be used to maximize this.

q Topology optimization– All loads are applied to package space envelope– Most efficient material is indicated– The highest stiffness structure derived– Reduces design iterations

Topology Optimisation

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

q A fundamental part of transmission design is the design and analysis of gear tooth profiles

q The gear tooth profile is a balance of strength and durability.

q Ricardo has developed in house analysis software for gear macro design, initial micro geometry definition and gear tooling software to ensure that gears can be manufactured without comprise.

q The gear tooth profile is a compromise for durability, strength and manufacturing

q Gear Design Methodology– Basic gear macro geometry to meet specification using Ricardo SABR software– Shaft deflection and casing misalignments are then used to determine gear misalignment– Ricardo TopGear software used to specify initial micro geometry– Finite element contact analysis performed to verify tip relief– Gear Tooling Software (GTS) derives exact tooth geometry from the tooling to ensure that design can be

manufactured to specification

SABR TopGear GTS

Tooth Profile

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

• Model Includes Bearing Stiffness, Shaft Stiffness and Gear Loads

• Used in conjunction with casing FEA results to calculate shaft deflections and resultant gear mesh misalignments. The program integrates the influence of bearing stiffness values with duty cycle to provide bearing life prediction, micro geometry optimisation and gear manufacture correction data.

Shaft and Bearing Analysis

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Finite Element Analysis

q FE analysis is used for stress and deflection calculation for the transmission casing and components with complex load cases. Also, modal performance analysis to calculate frequency response of structural system. This may be carried out on casing design to predict possible stress amplification due to vibration/load cycle.

q FE is vital for understanding the structure and ensuring that the casing has the required strength while maintaining the lowest possible mass.

q The results shown in the image show the results for a series of loads including all suspension, aero and internal gear loads. The image overpage shows the same transmission with differential cover fitted and loads in third gear

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Longitudinal Displacement: Acceleration

Relative to engine blockWhite = zero displacementPurple-blue = forwardsYellow-red = rearwards

Understanding the FE results can also be used to measure displacement of the casing to understand the compliance within the chassis and hence suspension deformation and affects on the tyre contact patch

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Shift System Dynamic Modelingq To ensure good dynamics within the shift system, a dynamic model of the gearbox components

can be built within a simulation environment such as Matlab/Simulink or Dymola to represent the forces and responses involved when a gearshift is demanded.

q The aim of this tool is to reduce dog-damage due to poor dynamics within the transmission system

q Detail models include all relevant degrees of freedom, including: mass, inertia, stiffness, damping, drag, friction and geometry

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Shift System ModelingThe transmission is represented by a simulated model

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Shift System Model Detail

q Dogs– Tip fillets, including variable force resolution during contact– Friction during contact – Multiple state model reduces the potential for instability during large impacts– Back rake angles– Torsional and axial stiffness effects included – Spline friction as a function of torque and geometry– Effects of dog ring gyration

q Barrel Cam– Rotational dynamics of the barrel cam– Barrel track profile as a function of angular position, generated from key

points on track profile i.e. angles, fillets radii– Contact between fork pin and barrel including backlash and friction

q Detent– Detent torque profile, user defined profile allowing effects of preload and

spring rate to be modified independently

q Shift Fork– Axial dynamics of the fork– Compliance – Axial backlash between fork and

dog ring– 2, 2½ or 3 pad fork connections

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Dynamic Simulation ResultsA

VER

AG

E N

UM

BER

OF

REJ

ECTI

ON

S PE

R S

HIF

Tq The results of the simulation can be used to identify key parameters within the

transmission that can be improved to reduce the number of rejections per gearshift due to dog to dog conditions and subsequent failure to engage the gear efficiently.

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Dynamic Simulation Results Leading to Optimised Fork Design (2 pad) Utilising Topology Optimisation and FE

Original DesignAnalysed

CAD Design WithManufacturing Intent andFinite Element Analysis

Verification

Optimum Shape To Resist Multiple Loadcases

Manufacture

• 250% Increase in Load Carrying Capacity

in stiffness

Package EnvelopeDefined For

Optimised Fork

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Torsional Vibration Study

q Ricardo have extensive experience of utilising Torsional Vibration studies to determine risk areas within the powertrain, this can be used to assist the design process and may be used to change resonant frequencies and amplitudes by varying the mass and/or stiffness of components.

1st Gear, 12,036Nm/rad 1st Gear, 8,772Nm/rad

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Differential Performance

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Wheel speed difference [rpm]

900 Nm

1800 Nm

3500 Nm

Symmetrical performance

TBR

0

2

4

6

8

10

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50


900 Nm

1800 Nm

3500 Nm

Asymmetrical performance

The differential is a key performance area in a race car and is required to have repeatable performance over a period of time. Traditional viscous-mechanical differentials have a widespread use in high level motorsport but suffer from asymmetrical performance characteristics that can give handling and set-up inconsistencies.Ricardo have developed a new design of differential that provides a symmetrical performance with significant benefits. Shown below is the Torque Bias Ratio versus Wheel Speed Difference for a conventional Visco-mechanical differential and a Ricardo symmetrical differential.

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Predicting results

q This is a calculation tool for varying set up parameters with output characteristics. It includes the effects of friction at the bevel gears which causes a small amount of asymmetry.

ReferenceParameters VC torque @ 50 rpm 300 Nm Rated VC capacity

Ramp angle 50 degreesCoeff. friction - plates 0.12 - Assume 0.1 - 0.2 for steel in oilMax axle torque 3800 Nm Largest input torque to diff

1900 2850 38004.88 4.88 4.884.01 4.00 4.0024.8 37.2 49.66.9 10.4 13.8

© Ricardo Motorsport, 2004Visco-Mechanical Diff Mk 2

TRD

Torque [Nm]Initial TBR (+0 rpm)

Clamp force [kN]Plate pressure [MPa]

Initial TBR (-0 rpm)

Torque Bias Ratio

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50


1,900 Nm

2,850 Nm

3,800 Nm

Percentage Lock (Percentage Torque Transfer)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50


1,900 Nm

2,850 Nm

3,800 Nm

Absolute Torque Transfer

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50


Torq

ue tr

ansf

er [

Nm

]

1,900 Nm

2,850 Nm

3,800 Nm

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Comparing Predicted to Tested results

q Test data from dynamometers is then compared to predicted data to verify results

q Graph shows - Coast Results 60deg ramp (rig test data showing torque transfer for varying speed and engine torque)

V-M Mk2 - Coast side - 45/60 300 Nm

-1500

-1200

-900

-600

-300

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60rpm

Nm

-20 Nm -20 Nm End-100 Nm -150 Nm-200 Nm -100 Theoretical-150 Theoretical -200 Theoretical

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Testing results

q VC_Map (rig test data)In-diff VC map - set to 300 Nm @ 50 rpm @ VC

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Wheel-wheel speed diff [rpm]

Torq

ue tr

ansf

er [N

m]

Torque transfer AVTheoreticalOffset

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Two Wheel Drive Rig

TorquemeterTorque

meterFlywheel

Test transmission

Torque meter

Flywheel

q Input Motor– Max Torque 450Nm@ 4600rpm– Max speed 9000 rpm– Power 217Kw– Max accel 12,500 rpm/s

q Output absorbers– Max Torque 3000Nm@ 500rpm– Max speed 2500rpm– Power 157Kw– Max accel 3,100 rpm/s

FlywheelFlywheel Torquemeter

Torquemeter

Test transmission

Torque meter

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Four Wheel Drive Rig

q Input Motor– Max Torque 1000Nm@ 4900rpm– Max speed 8000 rpm– Power 513Kw– Max accel 6,850 rpm/s

q Output absorbers– Max Torque 4000Nm@ 500rpm– Max speed 2500rpm– Power 210Kw– Max accel 3,150 rpm/s

Testtransmission

Test or slaveaxleA

djus

tabl

e tra

ck w

idth

Test or slaveaxle

Inertia flywheels

Torquemeters

Offset inputdrive

Testtransmission

Adjustable wheelbase

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

The Ricardo manufacturing system leverages best practice from motorsport and series production – it operates in a continuous improvement environment with an achievement culture

ApproachComponent Manufacturing

Series ProductionMotorsport

Continuous Improvement

Structured Issue ResolutionCI philosophy fosters bottom-up issue

identification, communication and resolution. Structured 8D process

used to resolve issues

Quality OwnershipOperator responsibility for quality,

elevating issues and proposing process improvements

FlexibilityAbility to meet reactive demand driven by short term / short lead

time requirements

CommitmentDedication to supporting customer’s

race winning requirements

QualityInvestment in facilities to deliver

highest quality products

CapabilityDeep understanding of motorsport

manufacturing requirements

ControlsISO9001 controlled, standardised

documentation used to drive accurate and repeatable

processes

FacilitiesFactory environment organised to facilitate effective and repeatable

processes whilst maintaining flexibility


©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Manufacturing Operations Carried Out on Site

q Turning

q Milling

q Shaping

q Hobbing

q Spiral Bevel Cutting

q Heat treatment

q Grinding

q Gear grinding

q Wire Erosion

q Broaching

q De-burring

q Lapping

q Laser etching

q Inspection

©R

icar

do p

lc 2

006

RD

.06/

8300

3.1

Contact details

w w w . r i c a r d o . c o m

Iain Wight

Business Development Director, High Performance Transmission ProductsRicardo UK

direct dial: +44 1926 477152facsimile: +44 1926 319352mobile: +44 7717 328401

[email protected]

Ricardo UK LtdSoutham Road, Radford SemeleLeamington Spa,Warwickshire, CV31 1FQ, UK

letter on potential conflict of interest in taxi of tomorrow competition

Documents