National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience -- Special Report 258 (2001)
Transportation Research Board (TRB)

Citation Manager

. "5. Transit Contracting Experiences and Advice from General Managers." Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience -- Special Report 258. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2001.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
127
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Contracting for Bus and Demand-Responsive Transit Services: A Survey of U.S. Practice and Experience

BOX 5–3 Balancing Oversight and Collaboration

Balancing vigilant monitoring and oversight with teamwork can appear to be a daunting task for agencies contracting for the first time. Yet examples drawn from the follow-on interviews reveal the importance of striking this balance.

In one case, increasing ridership on a contracted route began to affect the contractor’s on-time performance. In response, the agency adjusted the schedule to allow for additional running time; however, another vehicle and more drivers would be required. Because the contractor was paid on a mileage basis, the change would lead to additional unreimbursed costs. However, in working with the contractor to find a solution to this problem, the agency determined that by adding more trips to the schedule, the contractor would be able to cover most of the additional equipment and labor costs. Both the contractor and agency were satisfied with the result.

In another case, the lack of collaboration was detrimental to both agency and contractor. When a contractor was purchased by a larger company that asked to renegotiate the contract, the agency denied the request. A decline in service quality soon became apparent. In retrospect, both agency and contractor reported that a better solution would have been for the agency to accept early contract termination. Although the contractor would have sacrificed the performance bond, the relationship became increasingly adversarial and untenable.

to balance contractor oversight and teamwork, drawn from the follow-on interviews, are provided in Box 5–3.

Note

1.  

For those questions in which the general managers were asked to make judgments by checking a box, each box was assigned a number on an ordinal scale. To depict the responses graphically, the average ratings are presented in charts (such as Figure 5–1) that show the scale used. The averages are calculated by summing the ordinals assigned for each response and dividing the sum by the number of respondents. Because such averages mask variation, the charts are accompanied by tables (such as Table 5–1) that present the actual numbers.

Page
127