9:00
Read the following message
Dear Director Chan,
I write on behalf of Atlas Fare Systems regarding your 26 August notice of intent to award RFP IT-2025-044 to MetroPay Inc. The solicitation (issued 5 July; closed 5 August) identified weighted criteria of Technical 60, Price 30, and Experience 10. Our notification shows Atlas scored 48/60 (Technical), 18/30 (Price), and 9/10 (Experience), for 75/100. The posted summary lists MetroPay at 81.5/100. We request a debrief and certain clarifications before your office executes the agreement.
First, Addendum 2 (19 July) revised the API requirement from “REST-only” to “REST or GraphQL,” and indicated SDKs could satisfy non-critical endpoints where latency was demonstrated. The conformance matrix appended to the award summary still references the superseded formulation. If the matrix continued to map against “REST-only,” it could have depressed T3 (Integration) scoring for proponents, including Atlas, who proposed GraphQL for selected modules. We ask that the evaluation file confirm which version of the requirement governed scoring at consensus.
Second, the price workbook states that totals were normalized “to the lowest compliant bid using a linear formula.” We request the exact normalization equation, the identified lowest compliant total, and the point allocations derived for each proponent, so that our unit-price structure can be reconciled with the 18/30 assigned.
Third, we request (a) the redacted consensus evaluation report; (b) the rubric-to-requirement crosswalk used by the panel; and (c) the signed conflict-of-interest declarations. One evaluator’s LinkedIn profile indicates a consulting engagement with MetroPay within the last 18 months; we are not alleging misconduct, but seek assurance that any prior affiliation was declared and screened in accordance with your by-law.
Given the above, Atlas requests (1) a debrief within ten business days under §12.4; (2) reconsideration or re-scoring of item T3 where Addendum 2 applies; and (3) a short stay of award milestones until your office concludes its review. We remain prepared to keep our bid security valid for 30 days. Please advise of available times the week of 2 September; we can attend in person or via videoconference.
Respectfully,
Elena Park
Director, Public Sector Programs, Atlas Fare Systems
I write on behalf of Atlas Fare Systems regarding your 26 August notice of intent to award RFP IT-2025-044 to MetroPay Inc. The solicitation (issued 5 July; closed 5 August) identified weighted criteria of Technical 60, Price 30, and Experience 10. Our notification shows Atlas scored 48/60 (Technical), 18/30 (Price), and 9/10 (Experience), for 75/100. The posted summary lists MetroPay at 81.5/100. We request a debrief and certain clarifications before your office executes the agreement.
First, Addendum 2 (19 July) revised the API requirement from “REST-only” to “REST or GraphQL,” and indicated SDKs could satisfy non-critical endpoints where latency was demonstrated. The conformance matrix appended to the award summary still references the superseded formulation. If the matrix continued to map against “REST-only,” it could have depressed T3 (Integration) scoring for proponents, including Atlas, who proposed GraphQL for selected modules. We ask that the evaluation file confirm which version of the requirement governed scoring at consensus.
Second, the price workbook states that totals were normalized “to the lowest compliant bid using a linear formula.” We request the exact normalization equation, the identified lowest compliant total, and the point allocations derived for each proponent, so that our unit-price structure can be reconciled with the 18/30 assigned.
Third, we request (a) the redacted consensus evaluation report; (b) the rubric-to-requirement crosswalk used by the panel; and (c) the signed conflict-of-interest declarations. One evaluator’s LinkedIn profile indicates a consulting engagement with MetroPay within the last 18 months; we are not alleging misconduct, but seek assurance that any prior affiliation was declared and screened in accordance with your by-law.
Given the above, Atlas requests (1) a debrief within ten business days under §12.4; (2) reconsideration or re-scoring of item T3 where Addendum 2 applies; and (3) a short stay of award milestones until your office concludes its review. We remain prepared to keep our bid security valid for 30 days. Please advise of available times the week of 2 September; we can attend in person or via videoconference.
Respectfully,
Elena Park
Director, Public Sector Programs, Atlas Fare Systems
Choose the best option according to the information given in the message:
1. What is the primary purpose of Atlas Fare Systems’ letter to Director Chan?
2. According to the letter, what change did Addendum 2 make to the API requirement?
3. Which specific pricing information does Atlas ask Procurement to disclose?
4. In the sentence, “If the matrix continued to map against ‘REST-only,’ it could have depressed T3 scoring,” what does the pronoun “it” refer to?
5. Which set of documents does Atlas explicitly request as part of the debrief package?
6. Which action is NOT requested by Atlas in the letter?
Here is a response to the message. Complete the response by filling in the blanks. Select the best choice for each blank from the drop-down
Dear Ms. Park,
Thank you for 7.... regarding RFP IT-2025-044. We will convene a debrief 8.... and provide a package consisting of a redacted consensus evaluation summary, the rubric-to-requirement mapping, and 9..... Our Pricing team will also set out the normalization method, including the identified lowest compliant total and resulting points by proponent.
Your Addendum 2 question has been referred to the Evaluation Chair; if the conformance matrix used an earlier formulation in error, we will 10..... The potential affiliation you noted has been forwarded to the Integrity Office; they will confirm screening and advise us of any remedial steps. At present, award milestones 11...., but we expect to complete our review before execution.
Respectfully,
Grace Chan
Director, Strategic Procurement