SFMTA FY2025 – FY2026 Powered Scooter Share Program

Permit Question & Answer Session

April 16, 2024

Under Section “A. Device Standards and Safety Assurances”, it states that “applicants shall submit test results from a qualified independent lab demonstrating that each model scooter (including models in the Adaptive Scooter Program, if applicable) put into service meets or exceeds requirements set forth in California Vehicle Code and the San Francisco Transportation Code.” To streamline the City’s review of this pass/fail requirement while also easing the burden on applicants, would the City consider one or more of the following accommodations below?
1. Option 1 - Allow operators with already approved scooter models by SFMTA to attest that any proposed devices in their application either meet or exceed these state and local vehicle requirements. This attestation would remove the additional expense and burden of identifying a qualified independent lab for testing.
2. Option 2 - Allow applicants to submit previous independent lab testing conducted anytime in the last four years and attest that any new or subsequent scooter models since then both satisfy and exceed the minimum vehicle requirements.

Answer: The City will allow applicants to submit test results from a qualified independent lab conducted in the last four years demonstrating that each proposed scooter model meets or exceeds the requirements set forth in the California Vehicle Code, and will allow applicants to attest that any subsequent proposed scooter models meet or exceed those requirements and the San Franciso Transportation Code requirements. This answer is a clarification of the oral response provided at the Question and Answer session on April 12.

Under Section “G. Hiring and Labor Plan”, can the City please confirm if the term “company-hired employees" includes those who are hired by an Independent Contractor or “Logistics Partner” but do not get paid directly by the applicant/Permittee? For the purposes of evaluation scoring, will the City please confirm that only employees who are employed directly on behalf of the applicant/Permittee (i.e. under the company’s Federal Employer ID Number (FEIN)) will be awarded the highest scores?

Answer: Yes, to both questions.

In the application, it states "The SFMTA anticipates issuing up to three Powered Scooter Share Program permits." Would the City also consider issuing a single permit to an applicant that fully satisfies the labor harmony terms and notably exceeds all other requirements with a well-documented performance history as evidence?

Answer: The number of scooter permits is issued at the discretion of the Director of Transportation. We expect to issue new scooter permits to applicants that meet San Francisco’s high standards for safety, equity, accessibility and accountability.

Would the City be willing to consider extending the question period and application deadline by one week to allow for further review?

Answer: As communicated via email and the SFMTA website, the City moved the question deadline to Friday, April 5 at 5pm, the Q&A session to Friday, April 12 at 2pm, and the application deadline to Wednesday, May 1 at 5pm.

In advance of the questions deadline on April 3, we wanted to ask if the City might be open to extending the Q&A deadline one week to April 10, and the deadline for the permit application by one week to May 3.

Can the City disclose who is on the evaluation panel? What departments or entities do they represent?

Answer: No, due to the competitive nature of the application process, the evaluation panel members will not be disclosed.

How do you intend to notify bidders of the City's decision? Will both the selected operator(s) and those not selected be notified at the same time? If so, how?

Answer: We will notify all applicants in writing simultaneously.

Does the City intend a period of contract negotiation after selecting the micromobility operators?

Answer: No, the SFMTA will be issuing permits, not entering into contracts with successful applicants. There will be a period after applicants are selected where the SFMTA and the San Francisco Fire Department will engage with successful applicants to answer any outstanding questions prior to the new permit term.

Question C.2 states that applicants that commit to providing 50% or more of fleet as seated are exempt from Section D requirements. If we commit to providing 50% or more of fleet as seated, do we need to respond to the questions in Section D?

Answer: No, if an applicant commits to providing 50% or more of their fleet as seated, they do not need to respond to questions in Section D and should indicate that the questions are not applicable.

Question I.3.g asks for the five most recent, serious suspensions, penalties, etc. received from a local authority. How does the City define "most recent, serious"?

Answer: The City defines “most recent, serious” as including but not limited to the following actions within the past six months: termination, suspension, pause, or warning to suspend.

Question I.3.g asks for the five most recent, serious suspensions, penalties, etc. received from a local authority. What does the City consider a "suspension, penalty, citation and/or warning"?

Answer: The City expects the applicants to use the common definitions of suspension, penalty, citation and/or warning.

Question I.3.g asks for the five most recent, serious suspensions, penalties, etc. received from a local authority. What measures will the City take to ensure respondents do not under-report their suspensions/penalties?

Answer: The City reminds applicants that information in the application is certified as completed and submitted under penalty of perjury; any finding of omissions or inaccuracies may lead to disqualification in applicants and disciplinary action in permittees, leading up to and including revocation of the permit.

Are the Wet Signature Cover Sheet and Signed Application Cover Sheet the same document? Can the City confirm this is Page 2 of the Permit Application PDF?

Answer: Yes.

Would the City like a digitally signed copy of the Cover Sheet with our application submitted on April 26, in addition to the wet-signed version delivered on April 29?

Answer: Yes.

Question A.5.c states "devices with wheel diameters of over 12 inches will receive the highest score." Would the City consider revising this to read "devices with wheel diameters of 12 inches or greater will receive the highest score"

Answer: No.

Question A.5.d notes that purpose-built seated devices will receive the highest score. We have found that devices with seated components appended after the original manufacturing process provide greater fleet flexibility to respond to changing needs and perform as well as purpose-built devices. Will the City consider removing the scoring bonus for purpose-built seated devices?

Answer: No.

Would the City consider adding a scored component or scoring bonus for existing operators with a history in San Francisco? Currently, existing operations in San Francisco is part of a pass/fail question.

Answer: No. To clarify, there is no requirement that an applicant previously provided service in San Francisco.

Question A.2 asks for test results from a qualified independent lab demonstrating that each model of scooter proposed for San Francisco has certain specifications and technologies, including GPS location-based technology, sidewalk riding detection and alerts, and ability to implement geofencing. Typically, lab results do not cover verifying the existence of each of these components. Would the City consider instead themselves certifying operators' vehicles are compliant with each requirement of the regulations cited in A.2, perhaps by sending vehicles to the City for testing, as has been done in past permits?

Answer: No, the City will not certify vehicles. See response to Question 1.

Question A.2 asks for test results from a qualified independent lab demonstrating that each model of scooter proposed for San Francisco has certain specifications and technologies, including GPS location-based technology, sidewalk riding detection and alerts, and ability to implement geofencing. The vehicles that have historically been used in San Francisco's adaptive program do not have GPS, sidewalk, or geofencing technology. Would the City consider removing adaptive scooters from Question A.2 and have it apply only to vehicles that are deployed in the right of way (standing and seated scooters)?

Answer: Yes, adaptive devices are removed from Question A.2, although, for the sake of clarity, we note that adaptive devices must comply with California Vehicle Code requirements and the safety requirements set forth in Question A1.

Question I.3 asks for a list of details about each city we list in Question I.2. However, Question I.3.g asks for the five most recent penalties received, even if the city is not listed in I.2. Does the City prefer respondents answer Question I.3.g as a separate question, with the five most recent penalties received across the company from any market? Or does the City prefer we list the five most recent penalties for each city we list in I.2.?

Answer: Applicants shall answer Question I.3.g as a separate question, with the five most recent penalties received across the company from any market.

All current operators in the city have a single form factor in the adaptive scooter program. Would the City consider changing the requirement for two adaptive scooter models to one model to reflect this?

Answer: No.

In San Francisco, operators have noted that adaptive rental programs have only a handful of reservations a month. To align with demand, would the City consider allowing an adaptive program fleet of 1-3 vehicles, with the option for operators to increase their adaptive fleet size based on utilization and in consultation with the City?

Answer: No.