Letter On Potential Conflict of Interest in Taxi of Tomorrow Competition

THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE MICAH Z.
KELLNER MARTY MARKOWITZ

FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK 65th ASSEMBLY DISTRICT BROOKLYN BOROUGH PRESIDENT
Bill de Blasio – PUBLIC ADVOCATE
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
“[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
4
5
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.
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: RFPTOT@dcas.nyc.gov
2
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
New York, NY 10007
Telephone #: 212-669-8509
E-Mail Address: RFPTOT@dcas.nyc.gov
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
New York, New York 10007
3
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
4
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.
5
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
6
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.
7
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.
8
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.
9
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
10
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
11
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.
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
• 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
• Quality control
• Manufacturing
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.
16
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.
17
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.
18
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.
19
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 The minimum requirement for ToT vehicles is to have all taxi content
(summary) 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 Vehicles are required to comply with all Federal Fuel Economy and
economy and emissions 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
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
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
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.
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
• Quality control
• Manufacturing
• 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.

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,

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.
Appendix E: Projected Vehicle Retirement Schedule
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.
Retirement Year 2010

Retirement Month January February March April May June July August September October November December
Alternative Fuel Restriction 17 12 14 16
Unresticted 158 194 266 274 280 295 194 174 173 193 203 164
Wheelchair Restriction
Total 158 194 266 274 280 295 194 191 185 207 219 164

Alternative Fuel Restriction 4
Unresticted 226 176 263 271 299 364 230 219 204 148 141 115
Wheelchair Restriction 1 2 2 2 5 4 6
Total 226 177 263 271 301 364 232 223 206 153 145 121

Alternative Fuel Restriction 1 2 2 2 1
Unresticted Medallions 169 173 302 254 197 203 210 212 206 212 224 143
Wheelchair Restriction 4 17 6 5 7 23 17 5
Total 173 190 308 259 204 226 228 219 208 214 225 143
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

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.
Calendar year
Month of availability
1 Base vehicle
a Actual or target values?
c Platform name/ identification
d Existing /current platform?
e Original platform introduction date
f Annual platform volume
g Platform manufacturing location
2 Body style and dimensions
a Actual / target values?
b Body style
c NHTSA classification
d 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 driveline
b Engine location
c # of cylinders
d Capacity (cc)
e Fuel type
f Power (kW)
g Torque (Nm)
h Driven axle
4 Hybrid power
b Power (kW)
c Motor type
d Battery technology
e Battery capacity (Ah)
f Driven axle
5 Fuel consumption and emissions
b EPA fuel consumption (mpg - City)
c EPA fuel consumption (mpg - highway)
d Emissions class
Calendar year
6 Safety
b Tested as a taxi?
c IIHS Front
d IIHS Rear
e IIHS Side
f IIHS Roof Crush
g 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 features
n Additional pedestrian safety features
7 Body style
b # of front doors
c Front Door style
d # of rear passenger doors
e Rear passenger Door style
f # of cargo doors
g Cargo door style
8 Interior
b # of forward-facing front seats
c # of forward-facing rear seat positions
d # or rear-facing rear seats
e # of forward-facing convertible or flip-up seats
f # of rear-facing convertible or flip-up seats
g Max seating capacity (incl driver)
h Cargo volume index (SAE J1100)
i Passenger cabin volume index (SAE J1100)
Calendar year
9 Taxi content
b Partition
c Taximeter
d Lamp bar
e Trouble light
f Driver amenities
g Taxi technology package
h Driver / passenger communications system
i Interior trim materials
j Paint color
10 Accessible content
b Wheelchair accessible (ADA compliant)
c # of wheelchairs accommodated
d # of additional passenger seating locations
e # of convertible seating locations
f Loading ramp location
Attachment D: Vehicle Engineering Capability Page 1 of 5
In the boxes below, please indicate the number of years you have been actively involved with the vehicle design and engineering activities.
Previous Engineering Experience (Years)

Ref: a b c d
Area of experience
Ref Sub-system Vehicle and sub-system Vehicle and sub-system Vehicle test and durability Vehicle certification and
design development validation compliance
1 Styling - interior
2 Styling - exterior
3 Layout and packaging
4 Body
5 Suspension
6 Powertrain
7 Transmission
8 Driveline
9 Electrical and hybrid systems
10 Fuel
11 Cooling
12 HVAC
13 Brakes
14 Safety systems (airbags, seat belts, etc)
15 Seats and interior
16 Exhaust and after-treatment
17 Taxi-specific content
1-18 a-d Additional Notes (please add row and column reference) # of additional pages?
In the boxes below, please indicate the number of vehicle programs you have completed.
# of previous programs completed

Ref: e f g h
Area of experience
4 Body
5 Suspension
6 Powertrain
7 Transmission
8 Driveline
10 Fuel
11 Cooling
12 HVAC
13 Brakes
1-18 e-h Additional Notes (please add row and column reference) # of additional pages?
In the boxes below, please indicate the number of engineering staff that you currently employ.
# of Engineering Staff
Ref: j k l m
Area of experience
4 Body
5 Suspension
6 Powertrain
7 Transmission
8 Driveline
10 Fuel
11 Cooling
12 HVAC
13 Brakes
1-18 j-m Additional Notes (please add row and column reference) # of additional pages?
Attachment D: Vehicle Manufacturing Capability and Experience Page 4 of 5
Please tell us how many years you have been manufacturing and assembling vehicles.
Vehicle Manufacturing Capability and experience

Ref a b
Ref Metric Sub-system and Vehicle assembly and
component end-of-line test
manufacturing
19 Years of volume production
20 total # of vehicles / systems produced
21 How many vehicles or systems designed for taxi service have you produced in the past
22 How many years have you manufactured vehicles or systems designed for taxi service?
23 Describe your level of QA accreditation
24 How many years have you held these accreditations?
25 Do your mfg plants currently recover or recycle any waste energy or materials?
26 How may vehicles and sub-systems do you currently manufacture specifically for taxi service?
27 How many of your current model lines do you estimate are routinely converted for taxi use after production?
28 Current # of system and vehicle lines produced
29 # of system and vehicle assembly plants
30 Total annual production volume
31 Average annual volume by model line
32 Average annual volume per plant
33 Total # of manufacturing engineering staff
34 Total # people employed in system manufacturing and vehicle assembly
35 In how many different countries do you currently manufacture vehicles or sub-systems?
36 Into how many different geographical markets do you sell vehicles and sub-systems?
18-36 a-b # of additional pages?

Additional Notes (please add row and column reference)
Attachment D: Vehicle Manufacturing Capability and Experience Page 5 of 5
Vehicle Service and support capability and experience

a b
Ref Metric USA NYC Metro area
37 Size of current in-service fleet (all models)

38 # of dealers
39 # of parts distribution centers
40 Average dealership size - # of service bays
41 Average # of service personnel per dealer
42 Average # of parts personnel per dealer
43 Service network capacity (hoist-hours / year)
44 # of mfr service engineers
45 # of training facilities
46 # of service training staff
47 Availability of service manuals
48 Availability of training resources
49 Availability of service tools
50 Certification of independent garages and individuals
51 Quality systems in place for tracking service quality and maintaining technician certification?
52 Warranty parts return tracking?
53 System in place for tracking TSB's and FSA's ?
37-53 a-b # of additional pages?

Additional Notes (please add row and column reference)
Attachment E: Business Plan; Financial Projections Page 1 of 2
Contract start year 2012
Metric Year
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1 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 (%)

Proforma financial statements, indicating when funding will
12
be received
13
Balance sheet
14 Profit and Loss statement (income statement)
Metric Year
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

1 Revenue
2 Operating expense
3 Capital investment
4 Total expenses
5 Program expense budget
6 Program capital investment budget
7 Cash flow (cumulative NPV and free cash flow)
8 Operating profit
9 Return On Assets
10 Break-even analysis
11 Internal rate of return

Proforma financial statements, indicating when funding will
12
be received
13 Balance sheet
14 Profit and Loss statement (income statement)

Attachment E: Business Plan; Financial Projections Page 2 of 2
Year
Metric
1 Balance sheet provided (Yes / No) Y./N

2 Sales ($k) $k
3 Total Capital Employed $k
4 Return On Sales $k
5 Return On Equity $k
6 Current ratio
7 Quick ratio
8 Asset turnover $k
9 Return On Assets $k
10 Return on Capital $k
11 Total Liabilities / Net Worth Ratio $k

12
Debt / Equity Ratio
13
Debt / Asset ratio
14 Sources of credit and terms attached? (list

pages
separately)
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

Attachment F: Vehicle Price and Economic Value
Vehicle model
Introduction date MMM-YYYY M: Y:
Final year of availability M: Y:
Purchase Price Calendar year:

Expected Retail price $
Metric Description (include delivery charges; exclude sales tax &
title fees)
1 Base vehicle purchase price ($)

2 Optional feature 1
Consumable service part costs

Part Description Service life (k miles) Qty per service Unit of measure Service time (hrs) Expected Retail price $
1 12v battery
2 FEAD belt
3 Engine air filter
4 Brake pads (front)
5 Brake rotors (front)
6 Brake pads (rear)
7 Brake rotors (rear)
8 Windshield wipers
9 Cabin air filter
10 Engine oil
11 Engine oil filter
12 Transmission fluid
13 Transmission oil filter
14 Differential / axle oil
15 Coolant change
16 PAS fluid change
17 CV joint - inner
18 CV joint - Outer
Repair part costs

Replacement time Process / recycling
Part Description Core charge ($) Expected Retail price $
(hrs) fee ($)
1 Hybrid battery pack
2 Battery controller
3 Water pump
4 Starter motor
5 Fuel pump module
6 Evap canister
7 Radiator
8 Engine (complete)
9 Transmission (complete)
10 A/C compressor
11 PAS pump
12 Headlamp assy
13 Side marker lamp
14 Tail lamp assy
15 A/C condenser
16 Electric cooling fan
17 Exhaust system - without after-treatment
18 Exhaust after-treatment system
19 EGR valve
20 Front strut / damper (Shock absorber)
21 Rear strut / damper (Shock absorber)
22 Wheel bearings - front corner
23 Wheel bearings - rear corner
24 Body shell - complete
25 Front suspension corner - complete
26 Rear suspension corner - complete
27 Front bumper assy
28 Rear bumper assy
29 Front door - complete
30 Rear door - complete
31 Trunk lid / tailgate
32 Hood
33 Front fender
34 Rear fender / quarter panel
35 Windshield
36 Rear window
37 Door glass - front
38 Door glass - rear
39 Door mirror
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
Ricardo News
Ricardo helps with new Renault NVH facility

ensure that Renault engineers were in
O n September 26 Renault formally
opened its new Noise Vibration
and Harshness (NVH) unit devoted to
general performance and durability
testing, pallet design is a
comparatively straightforward process
a position to utilise the advanced
semi-anechoic powertrain and vehicle
the acoustic treatment of powertrains, of ensuring that a generic mounting test cells and associated NVH
located at the site of its Technical package is provided which is capable technologies as soon as
Centre in Lardy, approximately 45km of accepting each powertrain and its commissioning was complete. Testing
to the south of Paris. ancillary components, together with processes were documented in detail
One of the most state-of-the-art the requisite actuators and test by Ricardo based on the company’s
facilities of its kind in Europe, the unit equipment. For NVH testing however, own best practices, and training in
draws together in a single centre NVH the pallet system needs to be their implementation was provided to
testing and development technologies engineered in such a manner that it is Renault engineers and technicians by
and processes for all of the sufficiently stiff so as not to influence a Ricardo team initially at Ricardo UK
automaker’s powertrain and vehicle the vibratory and auditory facilities and subsequently based on-
engineering teams. The unit is measurements, while at the same time site at Lardy. The Renault and Ricardo
equipped with both powertrain and providing sufficiently clear access to engineers worked in partnership for
vehicle semi-anechoic cells together the engine for instrumentation. the initial NVH test and development
with advanced testing and analytical programmes run at the new unit in
equipment and software. It is intended Meeting dynamic vibration targets order to develop and refine these
to enable Renault to improve the noise Starting from an initial design the team engineering processes for maximum
quality of powertrains across its entire developed the structure to meet its operational effectiveness.
range. dynamic vibration targets using With the Ricardo on-site team
Ricardo has supported Renault as dynamic finite element analysis. The continuing to support Renault’s own
technology partner from the inception structure was manufactured and tested engineers and technicians in the
of the project to develop the new NVH in prototype form and a damping commissioning and operation of the
unit, assisting from the early stages in strategy developed to fine-tune its facility, Renault is firmly on a path to
the specification of the test facilities. A operational performance. further improve its already well
detailed example of this was in the Subsequently the first production pallet respected positioning as an
design of the standard powertrain test was manufactured and the design was automotive brand synonymous with
pallets to be used at the facility. For handed over to Renault’s in-house high standards of NVH. The
manufacturing team. significance of the new NVH facility
During the development and was underscored at the inauguration
commissioning phase of the new ceremony by Kazumasa Katoh,
facility, Ricardo has also provided Renault senior vice president of
technology transfer in testing powertrain engineering: “With the
processes and procedures. The NVH unit, Renault breaks new ground
primary objective of Ricardo’s in the control of vibro-acoustic
involvement at this stage was to phenomena. It will allow us to define a
‘sound identity’ for Renault
Renault’s new NVH unit at Lardy (above and powertrains, the objective being, at a
left) is equipped with both powertrain and
very early stage, to fully work noise
vehicle semi-anechoic cells together with
advanced testing and analytical equipment quality into the powertrains' genetic
and software. make-up.”
26 RICARDO QUARTERLY REVIEW • Q4, 2005

Exhibit 3
Hot
stuff
Renault chooses Ricardo
as development partner
for its exciting turbocharged
Renaultsport Mégane 225
Torque vectoring
Ricardo technology for SUV stability — and fun
Heavy duty
Meeting EPA 2010 standards
Interviews
Cost down Bernd Bohr, head of Bosch Automotive
Identifying savings to improve margins Larry Burns, GM’s fuel cell enthusiast
Summer 2004
Hot stuff
Renault’s X84 Mégane programme made industry history, with
seven mainstream models developed in-house and launched in
just 18 months. Ricardo was given complete responsibility to
develop and deliver the prestigious high-performance Mégane
Renaultsport 225 version which, as Tony Lewin discovers,
involved not just a potent engine and radical chassis upgrade but
design, trim, seating and manufacturing too
8 MÉGANE RENAULTSPORT 225 Ricardo Quarterly Review Summer 2004

I
n an automotive industry fond of talking in the language of code development of new models in the many other sectors in which
words and obscure project numbers, the name X84 commands Renault competes.
especially high regard. Mention this three-character combination By March 2004, with the seven-seater, long-wheelbase Grand
to any expert in the sphere of manufacturing, engineering Scénic released for production, the Mégane line-up became
development or programme management – even at a competitor complete: it now comprises the original five-door Hatch and three-
company – and he or she will nod respectfully, professing admiration door Sport Hatch, the innovative Coupé-Cabriolet with its folding
for a job well done and the achievement of what, by common rigid glass roof, the Sport Saloon and Sport Tourer wagon on the
consent, has been a major feat of industrial organisation. extended wheelbase, the five-seater Scénic minivan and, of course,
For X84 is the project code under which Renault developed its its lengthened Grand Scénic derivative.
new family of Mégane models, a range extending to an Each of these seven core models had to be separately designed,
unprecedented seven different body styles and rolled out on to the developed, engineered, tested and calibrated; each had to stand on
market with equally unprecedented speed: just eighteen months its own merits in Europe’s highly competitive lower-medium B-
separated the start of production of the first versions launching the segment where Renault managers were confident that the
range and the final models completing the line-up in March 2004. combined offering had the potential to become Europe’s top-selling
What is more, the whole seven-model set was developed within the model range.
space of 29 months – another sector record. Yet from the early stages of the programme it was clear that while
No other automaker has ever brought such a broad spectrum of the company’s highly organised in-house vehicle development staff
related models to market in such a short space of time. Directly had sufficient capacity to undertake the seven core model
paving the way for that world-class feat, Renault undertook an programmes, the specialised nature of the sports version meant that
intense examination of its own internal processes: crucially, new its development would be handled by Renault’s high-performance
and carefully honed procedures allowed this massive division, Renault Sport Technologies (RST), based in Les Ulis, in the
programme to be successfully steered through its south of Paris. The task was all the more demanding as RST was
many stages without totally swamping the also to manufacture the Mégane sport derivative – on the same
company’s engineering resources or assembly line as the already popular Clio Renaultsport 182 and
adversely affecting the Clio V6 Renaultsport 255.
Summer 2004 Ricardo Quarterly Review MÉGANE RENAULTSPORT 225 9

Low volume, high profile Ricardo to take responsibility for the for sourcing the changed items using
Such niche models are ideally suited to the complete vehicle programme rather than Renault’s existing supply base wherever
specialised skills a leading independent simply work on the engine to provide the possible.
development organisation like Ricardo can required 225 horsepower. Though the The move into the area of style and trim
provide. What Renault Sport needed was a horsepower hurdle was in itself a significant was not as intimidating as it sounds, notes
turnkey programme delivering a complete one – at that time the target was significantly Allsopp. Ricardo already had extensive
and polished high-performance car into a more than any existing competitor in the experience allied to powerful CFD
smooth production start-up, but with market – the engine development work lay software in aerodynamics,
minimum load on its own already hard- comfortably within Ricardo’s acknowledged allowing confident prediction
pressed staff. Yet while the build numbers area of expertise; it was by linking this work of high-speed stability
were to be low – a maximum of 25-30 a day with the development of the sports model’s issues and the
– the stakes were high: top-performing complete chassis systems and its styling airflow
models such as the planned 225 and trim upgrades that the programme
horsepower Renaultsport Mégane act as would break new ground for both Ricardo
high-profile brand heroes and have a major and Renault. Adding yet more to the
influence on the public perception (and thus programme content was Ricardo’s
sales) of the commercially vital large volume responsibility for establishing the
mainstream models. World-class manufacturing feasibility of all the
engineering and programme delivery were design enhancements,
thus essential requirements, more especially ensuring the smooth start-
so as the great success of the smaller Clio up of production and
Renaultsport 172 and 182 had helped push dealing with any
customer expectations up to very high manufacturing issues
levels. until Job One plus
“At Renault Sport Technologies we wanted 90 days. Effectively,
a partner able to undertake the engine and Ricardo would be
vehicle development at the same time,” responsible for the
remembers Dominique Huet, programme delivery of
manager at Renault. “That combination of everything – either
skills is pretty rare. The final choice fell on directly, or via
Ricardo because of their savoir-faire in outside suppliers –
engine work and the strength of their vehicle involved with the
team based in Leamington.” exciting new vehicle.
It was in a series of meetings between The task, as
Renault and Ricardo beginning as early as programme director and
2000 that the outline features of a possible MD of Ricardo Vehicle
high performance derivative began to take Engineering Bob Allsopp readily
shape. What Ricardo UK managing director concedes, was a challenging one:
Clive Hickman describes as a “broad- “This is very much a niche product: we’re
ranging request for quotation” was talking about a maximum of 30 cars a day, performance of the new front bumper
systematically refined over a period of six so it was important that the business case design, and the recruitment of French-
months as both sides did exploratory work was commercially viable at these speaking engineers made a major difference
on the project and used their findings to comparatively low volumes. The Renault in dealing with interior and exterior trim
assess the feasibility of the various solutions Sport team was always very focused on suppliers including major Tier One providers
and determine a closer final specification. ensuring that the engineering requirements such as Faurecia for the sports seats and
Unusually, the specification called for supported the financial criteria laid down by Plastic Omnium for the bumper systems.
Renault.”
Even at this stage, observes Allsopp, Managing next-tier suppliers
“We wanted a partner able Ricardo was still competing against other “It was always part of the turnkey
engineering services providers and working programme that all these systems would be
to undertake the engine at its own cost and risk: indeed, serious outsourced,” explains Allsopp. “Dealing with
and vehicle development at work, including mule and prototype vehicle French suppliers was something that was
the same time – that build, had begun in January 2001, the new to us: it took some managing, but ran
combination of skills is contract being finally awarded in April 2002. smoothly once our French engineers were
on board. Renault Sport is a very small
pretty rare. The final choice Programme definition group: they have to rely either on
fell on Ricardo because of Having established in principle that Ricardo mainstream Renault engineers or their
their savoir-faire in engine would deliver a high-profile, high- nominated engineering partners – RST
performance Mégane with best-in-class ride, always referred to us as their engineering
work and the strength of refinement and handling, the two companies partners. You have to remember that there
their vehicle team.” began the phase exploratoire to set the was no spare resource at Renault as they
– Dominique Huet, technical targets for the vehicle and were launching seven cars at the same time.”
determine the best ways of achieving those Once the design of the body and interior
programme manager, targets; Renault’s famous Technocentre near trim components marking out the Mégane
Renault Sport Paris would complete the aesthetic design 225 as the sports variant had been frozen
package, but Ricardo would be responsible by Renault’s Technocentre, Ricardo had the

responsibility for using the digital data from “What we then had to do, which is again
the styling clays to part of Ricardo’s expertise, was to establish
develop the fully a validation plan at the increased power and
torque that gave Renault the confidence that
they’d got a very durable product,” added
Thatcher. That involved putting together for
both engine and vehicle a validation
programme that focused on high engine
speed and high performance (a very
different duty cycle to the normal type of
vehicle) to ensure the product to be
delivered was saleable and durable.
Monthly programme reviews

Alternating each month between “Renault was so impressed
Renault Sport’s offices in by Ricardo’s thermal
northern France and Ricardo in
the UK Midlands, monthly
management solutions on
programme reviews brought the Mégane 225 that they
together all the disciplines have asked us to validate
involved in the project – not just
engineering and testing
similar thermal solutions for
specialists from both Renault future high-volume models.”
and Ricardo but Renault’s sales – Bob Allsopp, MD,
and marketing representatives and Ricardo Vehicle
also engineers from the main Renault
organisation. The fact that the uprated Engineering
engine was to be built in the mainstream,
defined high-volume Cléon plant meant the engine
engineering programme was run under GMP, the main of its competitors.
drawings with the Renault powertrain group, further adding to “Our objective was to have a car that was
suppliers. Following approval, the reporting channels involved. fun and safe,” explains Renault Sport’s
these drawings were then used for “Here in Britain the programme reviews Dominique Huet. “Fun like the Clio 172, and
manufacture of both prototype and tended to be engineering reviews,” predictable like the Audi S3 – and of course
production tools and parts. remembers Bob Allsopp. “So we would go the arrival of the Focus RS as a competitor
By early 2002 the engineering through, say, the chassis systems, the had shifted the cursor during the course of
specification of the base engine had been thermal systems or the underbonnet the programme.”
firmed up (see panel on page 12) utilising installations. But once we’d got up and In the words of Ricardo UK MD Clive
the Clio 172 crankshaft and a revised running with the main programme there
turbocharger. Faced with the challenge of would also be ride and drives very frequently
putting 225 horsepower and over 300 Nm of with both teams to evaluate
torque through the front wheels, Ricardo had where we were and what
proposed a highly innovative dual axis front progress we were making.”
suspension which was designed to eliminate Ride and drives were a
the potentially dangerous handling condition crucial element in developing
of torque steer – an acknowledged problem the Mégane 225 as a
on high performance front wheel drive thoroughly rewarding driver’s
vehicles. car, yet one which would also
“We even went to the trouble of building be comfortable, refined and
two mule cars based on the old Mégane to safe on the limit. These events
demonstrate the effectiveness of this unique were held in many locations,
suspension geometry,” recalls Allsopp. including Renault’s proving
“Renault quickly saw the advantages of the ground, in a location between
concept, especially after we had gone on to Rouen and Paris.
fit engines delivering the required Here, the vehicles would be
performance levels.” assessed against the product
The horsepower jump from the 165 of the planners’ stipulations which,
donor engine to the 225 in the Renaultsport according to Allsopp, were very
Mégane 225 was a big uplift for a volume clear indeed: “We actually
engine. Nevertheless, the raised output level started off wanting the car to
and how they would get there was a sound far more racy, whereas
challenge relished by the Ricardo engine Renault product planning
team. “Yet,” says programme manager positioned it as safe and fun
Robin Thatcher, “we knew it was do-able and with a sporty feel – they did Ricardo managed suppliers for instrumentation and
based on our predictive work in the not want it as narrowly focused interior trim (above), as well as seating and exterior
exploratory phase.” and uncompromising as some trim for sporting Mégane version.

Key programme achievements suspension, tuning of the steering system, handling, steering feel and NVH (noise,
springs, dampers, roll bars and tyres. vibration and harshness) – and performance
Ricardo responsible for delivery of However, it was not until last minute tuning targets like engine torque, engine power,
complete vehicle was complete for the suspension and emissions and top speed which are objective
Chassis, including brakes, steering, subframe bushes that satisfaction was finally in nature. There are also investment and
suspension pronounced. cost targets that have to be met through
Innovative front suspension Early on in the programme, Ricardo CFD each gateway: the whole business model is
Engine upgrade simulations using the company’s VECTIS reviewed each time, not just the engineering
Thermal systems software had shown that with the much- of the project.
Interior trim specification and sourcing raised performance, aerodynamic issues While costs and timing were clearly under
Seating would come increasingly into play. With the constant assessment, one engineering
Exterior trim and aerodynamics aid of VECTIS an aero package was deliverable stood out as the most ambitious
Bumper systems developed in the shape of a very small target of all: “Ultimately,” says Clive
Managing T2 suppliers spoiler on the back of the tailgate, and the Hickman, “ride and handling was the hardest
Manufacturing implementation results were vindicated with excellent of the subjective targets to reach – and of
Production quality assurance stability as soon as the first correctly-bodied these it was probably handling that was the
camouflaged prototypes could be tested at most difficult to achieve. To a certain extent
high speed in late 2002. The CATIA data for the target book sought to establish the
Hickman it was to be a “car you would want the spoiler’s critical dimensions was then handling suitable for a road car, but
to drive every day of the week, not just on sent to Renault’s designers near Paris, who ultimately the vehicle was going to be used
Saturdays and Sundays.” adjusted its appearance only very slightly: by people on a test track, so we had to
Both the Renault Sport sound quality and on the final production car the tiny lip on the make some detailed changes to optimise the
the dynamic performance of the car were tailgate is hard to spot at first glance, but its handling performance.”
recognised as being extremely important but effect is important. “In the end, Renault’s overall X84
challenging deliverables. Following a programme director, Carlos Tavares,
complex programme of test and analysis the Gateway requirements appointed one man as his delegated
experts professed themselves delighted with The gateways – programme assessment authority for all ride and handling matters,”
the resulting sound quality. There was, points – that Renault set were rigorous and recalls Bob Allsopp. “He is a brilliant
however, much more debate about the challenging: there were no soft options, engineer, tough and without any English,
achievement of the required dynamic according to Ricardo. The gateways include which didn’t make it any easier. But if he
performance. Extensive work had been done fixed criteria – vehicle attributes which can liked it we got a tick in the box – and if he
on the geometry of the innovative front lead into subjective areas such as ride and didn’t we knew we had more work to do.”
the reciprocating components in order to

Powerhouse rules withstand the increased mechanical and ther-
mal loading. The top-deck thickness of the
165 horsepower engine uprated to 225 piston was increased for example, as was
that of the connecting rod shank.
For a company like Ricardo it might seem a
For the crankshaft the team chose to go
comparatively straightforward engineering
further and select that of the Clio 172 engine
task to take an existing and well proven 165
as a replacement. The increased thermal
horsepower two-litre engine and end up with
loading of the more powerful engine required
a sports powerplant developing 225 hp.
the selection of an intercooler and an
However, for the Renaultsport Megane 225
enlarged radiator, again both sourced from
the task was not quite so straightforward:
within existing Renault parts numbers.
because the sports derivative would only be
Durability testing of the engine and vehicle
built in low numbers an entirely new engine
would be prohibitively expensive to produce. was based upon mission profiles developed
So instead the team set about achieving the jointly with Renault. This enabled the team to
required level of performance while minimis- focus on areas and patterns of loading criti-
ing the number of new components and cal to the durability of the product in real
maximising the use of carry-over parts from world operation typical of this type of niche
both the original base engine and others in the The initial stages of the development pro- vehicle. According to John Tovell, Project
current Renault range. gramme involved a thorough review of the Director for Ricardo on the 225 engine, “It
In addition to this, the technical direction of base engine. Every aspect of the original was particularly pleasing just how robust the
the programme was closely aligned to the design was investigated in terms of the sup- base engine was under durability testing –
needs of the manufacturing plant. The 225 hp porting design calculations and simulation the base structure and carry-over compo-
engine was to be produced on the same auto- work such as finite element and computational nents performed extremely well at the new
mated production line used for a range of dif- fluid dynamics analyses. This work quickly rating, and enabled design changes to be
ferent Renault engines in mixed sequence. In indicated the components of the base engine kept to a minimum.”
introducing a new engine – and particularly a which needed to be changed. A new tur- The success of the 225 engine team in
niche product to be produced in small quanti- bocharger was specified to exactly the same maximising the level of carry over from the
ties – it was essential that disruption was kept package dimensions as that on the base base engine is immediately apparent from
to an absolute minimum and for this reason engine but capable of delivering the high visual inspection, where only an expert would
the manufacturing engineers were involved boost levels required to achieve 225 hp. be able to spot the differences between the
from the outset. Subtle design changes were also made to base engine and the up-rated product.

The Mégane in figures
Engine
Emissions standard Euro 4
Engine code F4Rt 774
Capacity 1998cc
Max power 225 bhp @ 5500 rpm
Max torque 300 Nm @ 3000 rpm
Performance
Max speed 236 km/h
0-100 km/h 6.5 sec
EU combined economy 8.8 l/100km
vehicles conform in every sense to what is

needed by the commercial sales network,
triggering activities such as the press
Other challenges included getting the right gateway known as AMPSS – effectively launch and dealer presentations. Again,
steering feel through the electric PAS system the engineering sign-off of the complete the consistent hard work of the 60-strong
(where, says Allsopp, supplier TRW did a vehicle. In principle, changes after this Ricardo team and their Renault
“sterling job”) and fine-tuning the car’s stage of the programme should not occur. counterparts led to a smooth passage
balance for high-speed track driving. This However, the opportunity was taken to through these gateways.
called for a particularly sophisticated make final adjustments to the dynamics of
combination of characteristics rarely found the vehicle, and to perform re-validation Rewards
on the same vehicle: very safe but still where necessary. For all concerned, the payback for all the
rewarding handling for normal road The final two hurdles, labelled AF and design and development time and the long
conditions where understeer had to be the AC, are confirmations that, days and weeks of testing has come in
limit condition, and the ability to maintain a respectively, the vehicle is capable many and exciting forms. On a vitally
high degree of driver enjoyment on the of meeting all quality expectations important level the production start-up
racetrack where Renault knew the leading when built at the planned line rate, at Renault Sport’s Dieppe plant with
magazines would be evaluating the car. and that the manufactured strong support from Ricardo proved
Thermal problems solved through 1 Hub carrier

software 2 Upright
Another issue during the Mégane’s 3 Rectangular lower arm
development was that of thermal 4 Anti-rotation link
management under the bonnet. With the
engine developing so much power in such
a confined space the excess heat was
difficult to deal with and at one stage after
hot-weather testing in Spain Ricardo
identified no fewer than 153 thermal
problems. Systematically and with the
assistance of simulation in VECTIS, these
problems were solved one by one, and
Renault was so impressed by the results Complete
that it has gone on to ask Ricardo to
validate similar thermal solutions for future chassis package
high-volume model lines.
Through a constant process of Innovative front suspension design By adding a new, fixed lightweight aluminium
assessment, evaluation, engineering upright (2) at the base of the suspension strut
refinement and re-evaluation the combined Developed by Ricardo from an idea originating and moving the steered hub carrier (1)
teams honed the complete design and from a joint Renault Ricardo consultation, the outboard, Ricardo’s designers were able to
generated results which saw it safely innovative dual axis front suspension choose the optimum steering axis to minimise
through the many additional stages which overcomes many of the stability problems the hub-level offset.
separate initial engineering approval and suffered by high powered front-wheel-drive The addition of an anti-rotation link (4)
the final sign-off giving the green light for cars. Normal MacPherson strut front secures the upright so that the suspension
customer sales to begin. Throughout, suspension designs rely on the rotation of the strut no longer rotates when the steering is
Mégane 225s were being put through the spring strut between the top mount and the turned.
most punishing durability and extreme lower L-arm (3) to achieve steering, thus pre- Additional changes for the Mégane
climate routines all over the world, as well defining the steering axis and making it Renaultsport 225 chassis include a cross-
as certification testing, parts approval and difficult to achieve the short distance between brace between the front subframe arms to
type approval. the hub centre and the steering axis (known stiffen the frontal structure, while at the rear
The biggest hurdle in terms of Ricardo as the offset) that is key to interference-free stiffer springs, dampers, bump stops and
responsibility, according to programme steering and straightline stability under hard transverse torsion beam serve to achieve
manager Robin Thatcher, was the Renault acceleration. optimum roll control during sporty driving.

smooth and largely uneventful, any
isolated issues being quickly solved to the
evident satisfaction of Renault; Renault’s
financial and product planners were
evidently satisfied, too, with a programme
delivered on time and within the financial
constraints of the project, and with all
quality and performance requirements met
or exceeded.
But perhaps most important of all have
been the independent voices praising not
just the management of the programme
but the exciting vehicle that it delivered to
the Renault Mégane range. Press reports
have been effusive in their praise for the
power, speed, ride and handling of the new
225 version, reserving special acclaim for
the car’s mechanical refinement and
smoothness at speed – proof indeed that
Ricardo had fulfilled the precise brief laid
down by Renault at the beginning of the
programme.
Clive Hickman, guidance and Plastic Omnium provided the

front and rear bumpers. We worked with TRW
Managing Director, on the electric power steering: they did the
electrical balancing of the system, which is no
Ricardo UK different to any other vehicle programme as the
suppliers have to have an engineering input into
Which factors allowed Ricardo to win this the programme.
contract from Renault? Was it the Ricardo
track record, or what you were offering on Who decides, for instance, what kind of
this programme? steering feel to go for?
It was absolutely this programme. One of the A target book is established at the beginning of
things Renault said to me at the time was that the programme and the team then works to
they knew we could deliver the engine – that meet those targets. Ultimately, things like
was never a risk to them – but this was the steering, handling, ride, noise and vibration,
first time Ricardo had delivered a complete which are subjective assessments, are verified
vehicle, and that was a big risk. At that stage through ride and drive clinics with the customer.
we didn’t have a track record on complete
vehicles, so we had to persuade them we What special skills has Ricardo brought to
could do the job – and because of the calibre this programme?
of the Ricardo people Renault Sport was I think the key skill that others probably could
prepared to take the risk. not have provided was the programme
Were you competing with other suppliers or management expertise. I believe that Renault
Was the full scope of the programme Renault’s in-house teams at this stage? would say that we did a very good job to get
established right at the beginning? It’s very rare to be working in a single-source the product launched when we did – despite
They came to us with a broad-ranging request environment: we were up against other any doubts they might have had before we
for quotation. Over a period of about six companies, but we weren’t competing against started.
months that broad range was refined, during in-house because the new Mégane platform
the concept phase where both companies were didn’t exist when we first started. At Renault Does this success open new doors for
trying things out to refine the final specification. they were running in parallel as fast as they Ricardo?
could to get the seven main Méganes into the One of the things we now have in our portfolio
So Ricardo was already working on the market: the Mégane Sport is a low volume that we didn’t have when we began offering
programme before the contract had been vehicle but one which gives an important halo complete vehicle engineering is a number of
established? effect for the mainstream product. vehicle programmes that have been delivered
Yes – it’s part of our investment for the future. successfully to market and which have been
It’s the same with any job: you can’t win a Did Ricardo do the whole vehicle, well received by the market. There are the
programme of this magnitude without making a everything involved in all the changes? BMW MINI, the Hummer H2, the Jaguar X400
level of investment in the definition of the All of the changes were the responsibility of (X-TYPE) diesel, and now the Renaultsport
product. Part of that comes down to helping to Ricardo, but we did work with other partners to Mégane 225. Those four vehicles have
develop the specification, helping to set targets, deliver some of those. So, for example, whilst established a strong reputation for Ricardo,
and ensuring that you’ve got the right set of the brake system was our responsibility to bring and we can now use the combination of all of
suppliers to deliver the component parts into into production, Brembo was our partner and those programmes to win the next programme
the system. ultimate component supplier. In the same way – whoever the customer may be.
Faurecia supplied the seating under our

Exhibit 4
Transmission Design
The Winning Formula
Iain Wight
Business Development Director
Ricardo High Performance Transmission Products

© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
November 2006
Agenda
q Introduction to Ricardo
q Gearbox Design Techniques
q Differentials
q Testing
q Manufacturing
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
Ricardo Group
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:
History
– 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
Customers 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:
Product – Engine Engineering (Gasoline and Diesel) – Driveline and Transmissions Engineering
Groups – Vehicle Engineering – Strategic Consulting
– Control and Electronics – Software
– High Performance Transmission Products
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
q Investment in people and research ensures Ricardo are leaders in the

development and deployment of new technologies. For example the multi-award
Technology winning i-MoGen (intelligent Motor Generator) Mild Hybrid vehicle demonstrator
Focus was developed as a Ricardo research programme in collaboration with Valeo.
Ricardo Group
Ricardo is one of the world's leading automotive consulting

companies
Established Success Factors International Presence
q Focused on value-adding services

UK Germany
q Solving key industry issues
q Programme delivery as a core competence USA
q Investment in people and technology
q Critical mass with revenues exceeding €230m
and over 1700 people
q Independent and long established (1915)
Value-Adding Capabilities Global Client Base

Strategy
Consulting Strategy development
Acquisition & merger support
Product development Procurement strategy
Manufacturing &
Technical
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
supply chain
support service
Product
Research & Strategy
Development
Vehicles High performance
Transmissions Motor sport exhaust systems
& drivelines
Engines Control & Software
Electronics
Product Products/
Engineering Production
Ricardo Group
Ricardo has facilities and offices in the key automotive centres of

the world
Ricardo UK Ltd Ricardo GmbH Ricardo Prague Ricardo Japan
Shoreham Schwäbisch Gmünd

Tokyo
Prague
Cambridge
Leamington
Ricardo Korea
Ricardo Inc.
Detroit
Ricardo France
Ricardo Italia Ricardo India Ricardo China

© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
Chicago
Main Engineering Facilities Shanghai

Ricardo Corporate Offices
Ricardo Representative Offices
Profile of Ricardo
Ricardo’s Midlands Technical Centre houses a range of engineering

and manufacturing capabilities
Ricardo MTC
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
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
– Transmission assembly
High Performance Transmission Products
Ricardo designs, develops and manufactures a broad range of

successful motorsport transmissions – we set the benchmark
Motorsport Projects Delivered
Sports Cars: Audi R8 Raid: Mitsubishi Pajero Evolution
• Aggressive technical targets achieved • 8,000km durability target

• Proved that reliability is achievable at these • Novel technical features to reduce weight and improve
performance levels performance
• Most successful sports car in history • Exceptional success record in the Dakar Rally
Open-Wheel Rally: Ford Focus RS WRC ‘06

© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
• High tech, ‘value for money’ transmission

• Rapid design and development phase of a highly
• Selected for four major race series: Nissan WS, IRL complex transmission system
Pro, Renault World Series and Grand Prix Masters
• Concurrent rig and vehicle durability programme
• Over 150 units supplied to date
The Bugatti Veyron and Ford GT transmissions showcase Ricardo’s

high performance transmission capabilities
Low Volume Production Recently Delivered Projects
Bugatti Veyron Ford GT
• Design, development, prototype and production supply of 6

• Design, development, prototype and production supply of 7 speed manual transaxle
speed DCT including controls and electronics • Fast-track 20 month programme start to first unit
• Production build rate c.2/wk; total 300 units • Class-leading performance targets achieved
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
• Transfers 1001ps / 1250Nm • Production build rate c.52/wk

• Helps to deliver 0-100 km/h in 2.5s and 0-400 km/h in 55 s • Transfers 550hp / 500 lb ft
• Helps to deliver 0-60 mph in 3.3s
Both programmes delivered to the customer’s product development and quality systems requirements
An integrated approach using the right team, tools and processes is

critical to the successful delivery of our motorsport programmes
Motorsport Approach
Experienced Team Process Ownership

Ricardo’s Motorsport engineering team The working culture fostered between
comprises a small number of highly skilled engineering and manufacturing encourages
designers. Continuity of the team has driven ownership of the part and / or process
a very open, collaborative environment
Design Manufacture
Integrated
Capability
Effective use of Tools Continuous Communication

© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
A combination of concurrent engineering The proximity of the engineering and

and retrospective analysis is used to manufacturing teams facilitates both formal
balance the conflicting requirement of a and informal discussions / reviews during
time constrained design phase and the the concept and detail design phases to
requirement for a “right first time” solution optimise both design for purpose and
design for manufacture
Agenda
q Differentials
q Testing
q Manufacturing
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
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
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
Topology Optimisation
Tooth Profile
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
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
SABR TopGear GTS

Shaft and Bearing Analysis
• 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
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
influence of bearing stiffness values with duty cycle

to provide bearing life prediction, micro geometry
optimisation and gear manufacture correction data.
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
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
LH Corner, Load on 3rd Spring/ARB, 3rd Gear
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
Longitudinal Displacement: Acceleration
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
Relative to engine block
White = zero displacement
Purple-blue = forwards
Yellow-red = rearwards
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
Shift System Dynamic Modeling
q 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
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
Shift System Modeling
The transmission is represented by a simulated model
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
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
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
dog ring
– 2, 2½ or 3 pad fork connections
Dynamic Simulation Results
q 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.
REJECTIONS PER SHIFT
AVERAGE NUMBER OF
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
Dynamic Simulation Results Leading to Optimised Fork Design (2
pad) Utilising Topology Optimisation and FE
Original Design
Analysed Package Envelope
Defined For
Optimised Fork
Optimum Shape To Resist Multiple Loadcases

© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
in stiffness
• 250% Increase in Load
Carrying Capacity
CAD Design With Manufacture
Manufacturing Intent and
Finite Element Analysis
Verification
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.
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
1st Gear, 12,036Nm/rad 1st Gear, 8,772Nm/rad

Agenda
q Differentials
q Testing
q Manufacturing
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
Differential 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.
10 6
900 Nm
TBR
8 5
1800 Nm
3500 Nm
4
6
4
2
2 900 Nm
1 1800 Nm
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
3500 Nm
0 0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Wheel speed difference [rpm] Wheel speed difference [rpm]
Asymmetrical performance Symmetrical performance

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.
Visco-Mechanical Diff Mk 2
© Ricardo Motorsport, 2004
Reference TRD
Parameters VC torque @ 50 rpm 300 Nm Rated VC capacity
Ramp angle 50 degrees
Coeff. friction - plates 0.12 - Assume 0.1 - 0.2 for steel in oil
Max axle torque 3800 Nm Largest input torque to diff
Torque Bias Ratio Absolute Torque Transfer

10 3000
8 2000
Torque transfer [Nm]

1000
6
5
0
4 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
3 -1000
1,900 Nm
2
2,850 Nm 1,900 Nm
1 -2000 2,850 Nm
3,800 Nm
3,800 Nm
0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -3000
Wheel speed difference [rpm] Wheel speed difference [rpm]
Percentage Lock (Percentage Torque Transfer)

120%
Torque [Nm] 1900 2850 3800
Initial TBR (+0 rpm) 4.88 4.88 4.88
100% Initial TBR (-0 rpm) 4.01 4.00 4.00
Clamp force [kN] 24.8 37.2 49.6
80% Plate pressure [MPa] 6.9 10.4 13.8
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
60%
40%
1,900 Nm
20% 2,850 Nm
3,800 Nm
0%
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Wheel speed difference [rpm]
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
1800
1500
-20 Nm -20 Nm End
-100 Nm -150 Nm 1200
-200 Nm -100 Theoretical
-150 Theoretical -200 Theoretical 900
Nm
600
300
0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 rpm 30 40 50 60
-300
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
-600
-900
-1200
-1500
Testing results
q VC_Map (rig test data)

In-diff VC map - set to 300 Nm @ 50 rpm @ VC
300
Torque transfer AV
Theoretical
Offset
200
100
Torque transfer [Nm]
0
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-100
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
-200
-300
Wheel-wheel speed diff [rpm]
Agenda
q Differentials
q Testing
q Manufacturing
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
Two Wheel Drive Rig
Torque meter
Test
transmission
Torque Flywheel
Flywheel Torque
meter
meter
q Input Motor
– Max Torque 450Nm@ 4600rpm Torque meter
– Max speed 9000 rpm
– Power 217Kw
– Max accel 12,500 rpm/s
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
q Output absorbers
Flywheel Torque Torque Flywheel
– Max Torque 3000Nm@ 500rpm meter meter
Test transmission
– Max speed 2500rpm
– Power 157Kw
Four Wheel Drive Rig
Adjustable track width

Test
transmission
Test or slave
axle
q Input Motor Inertia flywheels
– Max Torque 1000Nm@ 4900rpm

– Max speed 8000 rpm Torquemeters
– Power 513Kw
Offset input Test or slave
– Max accel 6,850 rpm/s drive axle
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
Test
q Output absorbers transmission
– Max Torque 4000Nm@ 500rpm
– Max speed 2500rpm
– Power 210Kw Adjustable wheelbase
Agenda
q Differentials
q Testing
q Manufacturing
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
The Ricardo manufacturing system leverages best practice from

motorsport and series production – it operates in a continuous
improvement environment with an achievement culture
Component Manufacturing Approach
Capability Quality Ownership

Operator responsibility for quality,
Deep understanding of motorsport
elevating issues and proposing
manufacturing requirements
process improvements
Quality Facilities
Investment in facilities to deliver Factory environment organised to
highest quality products facilitate effective and repeatable
processes whilst maintaining
flexibility
Series
Motorsport
Flexibility Production Controls
Continuous
Ability to meet reactive demand ISO9001 controlled, standardised
driven by short term / short lead Improvement documentation used to drive
time requirements accurate and repeatable
processes
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
Commitment Structured Issue Resolution

Dedication to supporting customer’s CI philosophy fosters bottom-up issue
race winning requirements identification, communication and
resolution. Structured 8D process
used to resolve issues
Manufacturing Operations Carried Out on Site
q Turning q Gear grinding

q Milling q Wire Erosion
q Shaping q Broaching
q Hobbing q De-burring
q Spiral Bevel Cutting q Lapping
q Heat treatment q Laser etching
q Grinding q Inspection
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
Contact details
Iain Wight
Business Development Director,

Ricardo UK
Ricardo UK Ltd
direct dial: +44 1926 477152
Southam Road, Radford Semele
facsimile: +44 1926 319352
mobile: +44 7717 328401 Leamington Spa,
Warwickshire, CV31 1FQ, UK
iain.wight@ricardo.com
© Ricardo plc 2006 RD.06/83003.1
www.ricardo.com

Letter On Potential Conflict of Interest in Taxi of Tomorrow Competition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Letter On Potential Conflict of Interest in Taxi of Tomorrow Competition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Letter On Potential Conflict of Interest in Taxi of Tomorrow Competition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE MICAH Z.

KELLNER MARTY MARKOWITZ

New York City Comptroller John C. Liu

Dear Comptroller Liu,

The first potential conflict of interest centers on the dissemination of confidential

1. A conflict of interest exists if respondent, or any member or employee of

Bill de Blasio Micah Z. Kellner Marty Markowitz

Request for Proposals

APPENDIX A – VEHICLE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

ATTACHMENT A – PROPOSAL COVER LETTER

AUTHORIZED AGENCY CONTACT PERSON

Name: Edward Andersen

A. Release Date of this Request for Proposals: December 17, 2009

Name: Edward Andersen

Date: January 14, 2010

C. Proposal Due Date and Time and Location:

D. Anticipated Contract Start Date: October 2010

SECTION II - SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

• Highest safety standards

2. NYC Taxi Market Overview

B. Anticipated Contract Term

C. Anticipated Payment Structure

A. TLC Goals and Objectives for this RFP

B. TLC Assumptions Regarding Contractor Approach

1. Vehicle Technical Specifications

2. Expected Number of Vehicles

4. The Evolution of the Vehicle

5. Marketing Opportunities to Offset Costs

6. Direct and Indirect Benefit to the City

SECTION IV - FORMAT AND CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL

1. Proposal Cover Letter

A conflict of interest shall be defined as either of the following:

B. Proposal Package Contents (“Checklist”)

SECTION V - PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD PROCEDURES

• Quality of proposed approach 55%

C. Basis for Contract Award

Get on mailing lists for New York City contract opportunities!

iv) IIHS ratings

iii) External Communications Package

ii) Percent by weight of Post-Consumer Recycled Raw Material

Appendix B: Organizational Capabilities Page 1 of 3

Appendix B: Organizational Capabilities Page 2 of 3

Appendix B: Organizational Capabilities Page 3 of 3

Appendix C: Experience Page 1 of 4

Appendix C: Experience Page 2 of 4

Appendix C: Experience Page 3 of 4

Appendix C: Experience Page 4 of 4

Appendix D: Price and Economic Value Page 1 of 1

Retirement Year 2010

Retirement Year 2011

Retirement Year 2012

PROPOSAL COVER LETTER

RFP TITLE: NYC TAXI OF TOMORROW

Tax Identification #: ________________________________

Respondent’s Contact Person:

Respondent’s Authorized Representative:

TITLE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: PIN #

City _____________ State Zip Code _