Transit Fare Collection

Q (Pre Proposal Meeting Question from Daniel Clark @ Kintron):

A: Could you expand upon the goals that you hope to achieve with your retail sales or external sales, please? ANSWER FROM MEETING NOTES (Answered by: Nicole McCleary Director of Planning) So right now, our fare box system isn't really capturing everything that we need it to capture. We're also looking to make it easier for our customers to use the transit, right, so. We would love to go to fully contactless payment be able to. Have customers that are paying with their credit or debit card if they choose. Things like that.

Q (Pre-Proposal Meeting): The notice of the kickoff meeting indicates that it is both Mandatory (in the title) and Non-Mandatory (in the description.) Was attendance was required to participate?

A: The Kickoff Meeting was non-mandatory. Please note there is also a non-mandatory site visit scheduled this Friday 02/27/26 at 10am at Citrus Connection 1212 George Jenkins Blvd Lakeland, FL

Q (Experience & References): Must the required experience and references be exclusively from U.S. transit agencies, or will experience and references from agencies outside the U.S. also be accepted?

A: Proof of being in good standing in another state beyond Florida or a Canadian Providence will be acceptable at the discretion of LAMTD

Q (No subject): Section 2.18 – Liquidated Damages provides for liquidated damages of $1,500 per calendar day for delay in achieving Substantial Completion, Final Completion, or identified milestone dates, and further preserves the District’s right to recover actual and consequential damages for other breaches. Given that the proposed solution involves the implementation of a cloud-based transit fare collection system, including defined implementation milestones followed by ongoing subscription-based services governed by service level commitments, could the District please confirm: A. Whether it will entertain the possibility of no liquidated damages, or whether liquidated damages are a mandatory requirement; B. If liquidated damages are a mandatory requirement, whether the District would entertain negotiation of the liquidated damages amount; C. If liquidated damages are a mandatory requirement, whether the District would agree that such liquidated damages constitute the District’s sole and exclusive remedy for delays in achieving applicable milestones; and D. If liquidated damages are a mandatory requirement, whether the District would agree that the liquidated damages are subject to an aggregate cap aligned to a percentage (less than 100%) of the total implementation fees under the Contract.

A: A. Liquidated damages may apply B. Negotiation of liquidated damages may apply C. Liquidated Damages may not be the sole remedy D. A liquidated damages cap may apply

Q (Engineer of Record ): In our experience, without installing on the ground or on a platform, an Engineer of Record is not required. Can you please clarify if this is, in fact, a requirement of the RFP response?

A: Engineer of Record is not required

Q (Page Limit ): We are asking to extend the page limit requirement to 60 pages. Is this acceptable?

A: Page limit beyond 60 pages is acceptable

Q (No subject): Under Section 1.6., “MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS,” Paragraph A, notes that “Proposers shall be in good standing and authorized to transact business in the State of Florida. This shall be verified by the proposing firm being listed as active in Sunbiz.org database.” Please confirm that this must be in-place at time of bid submission and that a copy of the State of Florida, Department of State’s certificate authorizing the bidding company to transact business in the State of Florida be included in the offeror’s bid submission in order to qualify for a “Pass,” in order to progress to the next step in the process and not count against the 30-page count limitation.

A: Proof of being in good standing in another state beyond Florida or a Canadian Providence will be acceptable at the discretion of LAMTD

Q (No subject): Under Section 2.18, “LIQUIDATED DAMAGES,” the LAMTD will set “Liquidated Damages for such delay, not as a penalty but as compensation to the LAMTD for its damages incurred due to such delay, as follows: one-thousand five-hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($1,500.00) per calendar day for each and every consecutive calendar day elapsing between the date fixed for Substantial Completion of the Work and the date Substantial Completion is actually achieved, and if specified in the Contract Documents, every consecutive calendar day elapsing between the date fixed for a defined milestone and the date that the milestone is actually achieved; and one-thousand five-hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($1,500.00) per calendar day for each and every consecutive calendar day beyond the calendar days fixed for Final Completion of the Work and the date Final Completion is actually achieved.” Although it is of utmost importance for the selected Contractor to complete the Work in a timely manner, this level of damages is excessive when compared to other fare collection system contracts awarded in the State of Florida. For example, in the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) SunRail Contract No. BEC34, the LDs were set at $2,500 per day for a contract with a value in excess of $13,000,000. And although the pricing ratio is not known for this procurement as of yet, we believe that the LDs should either be eliminated or set at a more equitable LD level of $100 per day, and if an amount is set that there is a ceiling level set at 10% of the total contract value.

A: Liquidated damages will be set to $100 per day

Q (No subject): Under Section 2.20, “PROPOSER DISQUALIFICATION,” it is important that the State of Florida as well as LAMTD protect itself from undue Contractor risk, especially if they are unable to properly manage their finances. This heightened risk is manifested in being identified by a financial accreditation service like Standard and Poor’s (S&P). In this case, a firm with an S&P credit rating of “C” or below should be sufficiently risky to LAMTD to be disqualified. In addition, if that credit rating is not deemed risky enough by LAMTD, then at a minimum, if the Proposer is identified as in “Default” or “Selective Default,” that they are not qualified to be acceptable to the LAMTD.

A: LAMTD will determine "proposer disqualification" at its own discretion

Q (Key Staff): Under the Overall Evaluation of the Firm, the subsection, “Qualification of Key Staff,” is noted in the second bullet, where “The Engineer of Record shall be a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Florida.” We do not believe that a Professional Engineer (PE) license is necessary for this project, especially given this is attributable to construction efforts and since this project is generally a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) system it is less important than having successful fare collection and Information Technology (IT) experience. Given this, we request that this evaluation element be removed and that the Engineer of Record is NOT required to be a PE, but rather someone with fare collection system experience as well as the other critical team members. Perhaps an Engineer having at least five (5) years’ experience in the fare collection industry and successfully delivered at least one (1) fare collection project in the State of Florida with substantially the same services as needed by LAMTD involving the design, system development, installation and systems maintenance for a new fare collection system.

A: Having an Engineer of Record or a Professional licensed Engineer is not applicable to this project

Q (Vendor Requirements): In Section 9.2., “Vendor Requirements,” there are several sub-elements that the vendor must meet. We recommend that for Sub-section B., at least one (1) Florida public transit agency be added as this State has unique factors that are key to success and only a company that has delivered at least one fare collection system project in the State is a reasonable factor. Below is a suggested update to Item B. B. At least three recent (within 3 years) references from public transit agencies with one (1) being in the State of Florida, where mobile ticketing services were implemented.

A: LAMTD requests that Vendors advise if offerers have FL public transit references

Q (Pricing Sheet): For the Price Schedule, Annual SaaS Costs are typically noted in percentage of revenue for each transaction. As mobile ticketing costs are different than the retail network costs this is also typically represented as two separate percentage of transaction application (one for mobile ticketing transaction and the other for retail network reload transactions). We recommend that there be two-line items under “Annual SaaS costs,” where one represents “Mobile Ticketing Transactions,” and the other represents “Retail Network Reload Transactions.”

A: There will be an addendum generated requesting that there be two-line items under “Annual SaaS costs,” where one represents “Mobile Ticketing Transactions,” and the other represents “Retail Network Reload Transactions.”

Q (Mobile Ticketing App Rating): Since the mobile ticketing app is a key feature of the fare collection system, the LAMTD should implement the best application possible so that the public will embrace, accept and use this app on their mobile phone. If the app rating is poor, it has been proven that it will not be used. In addition, it is common sense most people typically review the rating of products and services before using them. We do that in our everyday life, and the rating is the purest form of utility by the public. Given this, we strongly recommend that the LAMTD require a mobile ticketing app with at least a 4.0 rating or higher, as evidenced by at least five hundred (500) ratings, for a minimum of two (2) current implementations in operation with at least one (1) of those being in the State of Florida. That way you can be assured of a successful usage rate for your app.

A: This is not a question.

Q (Pricing): The second pricing Line Item notes, "Fare Collection Equipment at (4) Service Locations but under the Quantity Column 2 devices are listed. Should we submit pricing for 4 or 2 units to be used as the Service Locations?

A: Please submit pricing for four units.

Q (“Design-Build Firm” requirement): Given that the primary purpose of this RFP is the implementation of a software-based Transit Fare Collection system (cloud base), and that any physical installation work may be performed by appropriately licensed subcontractors, can LAMTD please confirm that the “Design-Build Firm” requirement under section 1.6(D) Minimum Requirements does not apply to proposers whose principal scope of work is software delivery?

A: "Design Build firm" requirements do not apply to this RFP.

Q (DBE participation goal): During the Pre-Proposal Meeting, it was stated that no DBE participation goal would be established for this contract. However, this update does not appear to be reflected in the latest RFP documentation (Addendum #3). Could LAMTD please confirm whether there will be no DBE participation goal applicable to this solicitation?

A: There is no DBE participation goal applicable to this solicitation

Q (Required Forms and Certifications): Section 2.16 states that Proposers must complete and return all Forms required by the section titled “Required Forms and Certifications,” and that failure to do so may result in the Proposal being deemed non-responsive. Could LAMTD please clarify which specific forms are included under the section “Required Forms and Certifications”? In particular, does this refer to the forms listed in Section 8 – “Vendor Questionnaire,” or are there additional forms that must be submitted to comply with this requirement?

A: All forms are part of Section 8 Vendor Questionnaire

Q (Truth-in-Negotiation Certificate): Section 2.17 requires the submission of a Truth-in-Negotiation Certificate with the Technical Proposal. Could LAMTD please confirm whether a specific form is required for the Truth-in-Negotiation Certificate? If so, could you indicate where the form can be found? Additionally, please clarify how this certificate should be submitted as part of the Proposal (e.g., as a separate form, within the Technical Proposal, or under the Required Forms section).

A: "Truth-in-Negotiation" Certification is not required.

Q (Identification of an Engineer of Record licensed in Florida): The RFP requires identification of an Engineer of Record licensed in the State of Florida as part of the Qualification Proposal. Given that the primary scope of this contract is the implementation of a cloud-based Transit Fare Collection system (software solution), and that the physical work described appears limited to the installation of fare validators on vehicles — without structural modifications or regulated engineering design services — could LAMTD please confirm that the requirement to designate a Florida-licensed Professional Engineer as part of the main Bidder does not apply to this solicitation, provided that any equipment installation will be performed by appropriately licensed technicians or subcontractors?

A: Having an Engineer of Record or a Professional licensed Engineer does not apply to this RFP.

Q (Past Experience): Sections 2a and 2c of the Qualification Proposal appear to request similar information regarding previous projects of comparable scope, size, and complexity. Could LAMTD please clarify the intended distinction between the information requested in Sections 2a and 2c? Additionally, can proposers assume that the same projects may be referenced in both sections, or is different information expected for each?

A: 2a and 2c request similar information regarding previous projects of comparable scope, size, and complexity. The same projects may be referenced in both sections.

Q (Proposed Solution Description): Could LAMTD please clarify whether proposers are expected to include a detailed technical description of the proposed solution as part of their submission? If so, please confirm in which section this information should be included (Qualification Proposal or Technical Proposal). Additionally, could LAMTD clarify whether there is any specific scoring associated with the proposed solution’s features and compliance with the technical requirements outlined in the Scope of Work?

A: A detailed technical description of the proposed solution should be included in the proposal. Technical proposal Scoring is detailed in Section 3.6 Selection Criteria - "Technical Proposal".

Q (Additional Technical Information): Section 9.1.L states that, in addition to completing the three supplemental forms requiring technical specifications included with the RFP, the vendor shall provide certain technical information in its proposal. Could LAMTD please clarify: Which specific documents constitute the “three supplemental forms” referenced in this section? In which section of the proposal should the technical information required under Section 9.1.L be included (Qualification Proposal or Technical Proposal)? Whether the content provided in response to Section 9.1.L will be subject to technical evaluation and scoring?

A: Section 9.1.L statement "in addition to completing the three supplemental forms requiring technical specifications included with the RFP, the vendor shall provide certain technical information in its proposal." will be removed. This change will be referenced as an addendum separately.

Q (Deadline Extension): In light of the scope and required response documentation, we respectfully request an extension of approximately two to three weeks to the Proposal Due Date. Could LAMTD please confirm whether the submission deadline may be extended accordingly? Thank you for your consideration.

A: Reply to questions will be by 03/20/26 The Proposal Due Date will be extended to 04/17 Award Date extended to 05/01/26 One Addendum with these updates to follow.

Q (Open Payment Functionality): In the Q&A it was mentioned that one of LAMTD’s goals is to move toward a fully contactless fare system. Could LAMTD please clarify whether this procurement is intended to include open payment functionality on board (e.g., contactless bank card payments), or if this capability is outside the scope of this RFP?

A: Open payment functionality is being considered as part of the scope.

Q (Due date for Questions/Clarifications): In your document "Transit Fare Collection (Addendum #3)"on page 7 of 55, question due date is March 6, 2026 at 2:00pm and again on page 28 of 55, the the question deadline on Friday, March 20, 2026 at 2:00 pm (ET). Which is the correct date?

A: Reply to questions will be by 03/20/26 The Proposal Due Date will be extended to 04/17 Award Date extended to 05/01/26 One Addendum with these updates to follow

Q (Vendor Questionnaire and Forms to be completed): Is it possible to provide download links for the Vendor Questionnaire forms and for "Forms B to N" separately? The links in the document (Addendum #3) give an "ERROR" message.

A: Vendor Questionnaire "Forms B to N" will be sent separately, as an addendum

Q (References): Would Lakeland consider enabling nationwide references as an acceptable demonstration of experience?

A: National references are acceptable. Florida Transit references are preferable

Q (No subject): In Addendum #4, Criterion 2c under "Qualification, Experience & Availability of Key Staff" has been revised to state: "The Proposer shall demonstrate experience with transit agency projects in the State of Florida." In Section 3.5, it is mentioned that the minimum number of references under this criterion is three (3). However, in the table in Section 4, the minimum number of references appears to have been removed. Could LAMTD please confirm whether there is no longer a minimum number of references required for this criterion?

A: At least one Florida Transit reference preferred. Fare collection references are preferred

Q (Timeline): Please confirm the District’s anticipated Go-Live date for the Mobile Ticketing System, including whether a phased or pilot launch is preferred prior to full revenue service.

A: At this time there is not a Go Live date for the project as that will be dependent on the schedule that is agreed upon with the selected team. A phased approach is preferred for launching this project.

Q (No subject): Section 9 – Price Proposal - Base Terms Pricing The pricing table includes line items for Annual SaaS Costs and 5 Year Warranty Costs. Could the District please confirm (i) that the Supplier can invoice the annual SaaS fees to be paid annually in advance?; (ii) whether pricing should assume fixed rates for the full initial term?; and (iii) that the District will accept annual price increases of the greater of 5% or US CPI?

A: The Supplier can invoice the annual SaaS fees to be paid annually in advance. Fixed rates for the initial term are preferred. Annual price increases or decreases based upon the US CPI may be acceptable. No pricing increase is preferred.

Q (No subject): Section 9 – Price Proposal - Base Terms Pricing The Base Terms Pricing table references hardware quantities and installation as a single lot. Could the District confirm whether installation milestones and corresponding payment milestones may be agreed post-award during project planning, subject to mutual agreement and dependency on District readiness?

A: Yes, installation milestones and corresponding payment milestones may be agreed post-award during project planning, subject to mutual agreement and dependency on District readiness.

Q (No subject): Section 9 – Price Proposal - Base Terms Pricing - Smart Card Costs (16,000 units) Please confirm whether smart card volumes are fixed minimum purchase commitments or estimates only, and how overages or underutilisation will be addressed commercially.

A: The District confirms that the 16,000 units represent a fixed minimum purchase commitment. Any cards remaining from the 16,000-unit commitment at the end of a contract year will roll over to the subsequent year. For volumes exceeding the initial 16,000 units, the District requests a tiered pricing structure or a "most-favored-customer" rate. Proposers should clearly define the lead times and unit costs for these supplemental orders in their pricing schedule.

Q (No subject): 1.4 Contract Term Section 1.4 states that the Contract term shall be to project completion. Could the District please define ‘project completion’ and confirm the intended duration of ongoing SaaS hosting, operational support, and warranty services following system acceptance?

A: The Districts' standard agreements are for 3-years with 2 1-year offers to renew. The district is willing to enter into a 5year agreement without extensions. Project completion is at the end of the agreement.

Q (No subject): FTA Termination Could the District confirm whether, on termination for convenience, as permitted by the FTA terms, it will accept early termination charges of 80% of the remaining contract charges?

A: The district will not accept early termination charges of 80% of the remaining contract charges

Q (No subject): Form_K_-_Statement_of_Insurance_Compliance; Additional Insured and Cancellation Notice The form requires additional insured status and 30 days’ cancellation notice. Could the District confirm whether this applies to professional liability and cyber policies, or only to general liability and automobile coverage?

A: Additional Insured and 30 days’ cancellation notice applies only to general liability and automobile coverage.

Q (No subject): Form_K_-_Statement_of_Insurance_Compliance; Self-Insurance Retention Disclosure The form states deductibles/self-insured retentions may be disapproved. Could the District confirm acceptable deductible thresholds for cyber and professional liability policies?

A: The district will not confirm acceptable deductible thresholds for cyber and professional liability policies.

Q (No subject): Form_L_-_Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Statement_of_Certification; Civil Rights and EEO Compliance Please confirm whether additional reporting obligations beyond execution of this certification will apply during contract performance

A: Additional reporting obligations beyond execution of this certification will not apply during contract performance.

Q (No subject): Form_H_-_Certification_of_Restrictions_on_Lobbying; Federal Lobbying Restrictions Please confirm whether any ongoing disclosure obligations apply post-award beyond the standard federal reporting obligations set out in this form.

A: There are no ongoing disclosure obligations applicable post-award beyond the standard federal reporting obligations set out in this form.

Q (Hardcopy Ticketing): When Scope of Work, 7.1-A #17 references "hard copy ticketing", is this a requirement to dynamically print fare tickets such as QR codes that can be validated electronically for LAMTD's pass products, enabling riders without fare media to instantly purchase and use fare products?

A: Yes.

Q (Family/Group Fares): Scope of Work section 7.1-D "Validation" #7 includes a provision for multiple tickets to be active for groups and families, does LAMTD also require group passes which allow agency-defined multiple validations of a single ticket to specific support family passes and group travel?

A: Group passes can be a single barcode that allows a set number of riders or a mutli-tap validation. The proposer should identify which process they believe would work better for the agency.

Q (Cash Payment): In the scope of work, section H "Cash Payment" , does LAMTD also require a rider stored value account or wallet such that riders can digitize cash in retail sales outlet - loading money into their account - and then decide the best fare product or pay single ride fares in the future from this stored value?

A: Yes

Q (Retail Network Support): Can you please clarify for the Scope of Work page 3 on Cash Payment, is the retail network that LAMTD requires a turn-key network that the proponent establishes for LAMTD, or is LAMTD willing to build the relationships, contract with the retailers, train the staff, and maintain the financial aspects of these retail store locations themselves?

A: LAMTD requires a fully turn-key retail network solution. LAMTD will not manage individual retail relationships or handle administrative maintenance. The solution must leverage an established third-party network to provide immediate, seamless cash-loading services for our riders.

Q (Estimating transaction costs): How do we estimate for transaction costs in the current price proposal? Typically agency RFP’s will provide an estimated volume of transactions and an estimated average transaction size (e.g. $1 million in annual transactions and the average transaction is $2.00). This allows everyone’s transaction fee estimates to be normalized and easily compared in the pricing evaluation.

A: For the purposes of this proposal please assume the following: • Annual Transaction Volume: 500,000 transactions • Average Transaction Value: $2.50 • Estimated Annual Revenue: $1.25 Million • 3% annual growth rate Additionally, assume that 70% of these transactions will be processed through the new electronic farebox system (with the remaining 30% being legacy cash or pre-printed tickets).

Q (Equipment at customer service locations): What do you mean by “LAMTD will need Equipment installed capable of mobile and hard copy ticketing at the (4) Customer Service Locations below:” is this a ticket vending machine, a Point of Sale mobile device or something else?

A: LAMTD is requesting Point of Sale (POS) workstations for staffed customer service counters. These units should enable staff to issue both physical media and digital media and could also include self-serve standalone Ticket Vending Machines.

Q (Avail ITS integration requirements): What is required for “The App must provide seamless integration with the District's Avail ITS Technology.”

A: System shall have the ability to collect accurate and real-time data on various fare types. Proposer's System shall have the ability for full Farebox Integration including but not limited to fare set, route, trip, Driver ID, direction, and farebox alarms. Login/trip information for fare tagging shall be received via SAE J1708 communication standard or ethernet via adherence to existing Avail API/In-vehicle dataserver. System shall provide single point logon from the onboard MDT to the Farebox. Information to be received by the farebox shall include: Driver ID Block number Run number Route number Trip number Direction Stop number Vehicle location (latitude/longitude GPS coordinates) Fareset number Farebox information shall be tagged for reporting with: Date and Time Vehicle Number The MDT shall be able to update the farebox data when there is a change to the driver, block, run, route, trip, direction, or stop. The system shall allow the farebox to remain on and operational even when there is no driver logged in to the MDT or the MDT screen has been locked by the driver.

Q (Pricing estimates for spare validators): Did Citrus Connection incorporate spares in the Quantity (54) for “Fare Collection Equipment for (54) Fixed Route Vehicles"? We typically include a 10% spares ratio for validators in our pricing estimates for validator quotes which is common industrywide (e.g. 6 additional spare units for a 54 bus fleet).

A: Please include 10% spare ratio in pricing estimates - it was not included in the published quantity.

Q (Template for RFP scope of work): Your RFP scope of work contains a lot of identical requirements with the existing live RFP scope of work for SCTA in Pennsylvania here - https://pennbid.bonfirehub.com/opportunities/224219. Did you work with a consultant or group of agencies to draft this scope of work in coordination?

A: The District drafted the Scope of Work with some assistance from OpenGov's software.

Q (GTFS?): Does the Avail ITS solution provide a public GTFS-RT feed?

A: Yes.

Q (Fare Box): Can you please clarify what is on the buses today as far as fare boxes, other fare collection equipment, and data connectivity?

A: We have Diamond Manufacturing F-2 Series fareboxes with Arcontia card readers from Avail we collect data with the Avail system

Q (Open Payments): With reference to Q&A #24, and to avoid any ambiguity and ensure a consistent basis for pricing across bidders, could LAMTD please clarify the following: A. Please confirm whether open payment functionality (e.g., contactless bank card payments on board) shall be included in the base scope of this proposal. B. Please clarify whether open payment functionality shall be considered as part of the technical evaluation criteria. C. Please confirm whether open payment functionality shall be included in the pricing submitted as part of the base proposal, and therefore shall be considered as part of the price evaluation criteria.

A: Open payment functionality is being considered as part of the scope.

Q (District's Avail ITS Technology): With reference to Section 7 (Scope of Works), C. Required Integrations, when LAMTD states that “The App must provide seamless integration with the District's Avail ITS Technology,” could LAMTD please clarify whether this refers to the onboard communications equipment? If not, could LAMTD please elaborate on the specific integration requirements?

A: System shall have the ability to collect accurate and real-time data on various fare types. Proposer's System shall have the ability for full Farebox Integration including but not limited to fare set, route, trip, Driver ID, direction, and farebox alarms. Login/trip information for fare tagging shall be received via SAE J1708 communication standard or ethernet via adherence to existing Avail API/In-vehicle dataserver. System shall provide single point logon from the onboard MDT to the Farebox. Information to be received by the farebox shall include: Driver ID Block number Run number Route number Trip number Direction Stop number Vehicle location (latitude/longitude GPS coordinates) Fareset number Farebox information shall be tagged for reporting with: Date and Time Vehicle Number The MDT shall be able to update the farebox data when there is a change to the driver, block, run, route, trip, direction, or stop. The system shall allow the farebox to remain on and operational even when there is no driver logged in to the MDT or the MDT screen has been locked by the driver.

Q (Onboard Comm. Equipment): Could LAMTD please confirm whether the buses are equipped with an onboard communications router, and if so, whether the router has at least one available Ethernet port for integration purposes?

A: Buses are equipped with DIGI Router from Avail the do have open Ethernet ports but are not open to use without Avail support

Q (Smart Cards Riders): Could LAMTD please confirm that smart card riders should have access to a stored value account allowing them to ride without having to purchase a ticket in advance of riding a LAMTD service?

A: Confirmed.

Q (Branded Mobile App): Considering the importance of delivering a consistent and agency-led rider experience and the fact that LAMTD already has a branded mobile ticketing application, could LAMTD please confirm that a fully branded mobile application for the agency is expected as part of this procurement?

A: Upgrades and improvements to the mobile ticketing application are expected as part of the fully branded mobile application.

Q (Fare Capping): With reference to the requirement on fare capping, and with the objective of promoting equity and accessibility for all rider types, could LAMTD please confirm that fare capping functionality is intended to be applied consistently across all media types, regardless of how customers choose to travel (e.g., mobile ticketing, smart cards, mobile wallets, or contactless bank cards)?

A: The same logic should apply yo a customer using a smart card, a mobile ticketing app or open payments to ensure equity and accessibility in fare capping.