Deep Dive: Transit & Micromobility — A Buyer's Guide: How to Evaluate Solutions

Procuring transit and micromobility solutions has become increasingly complex as the sector matures. Cities and transit agencies face a proliferation of vendors offering bike-share, e-scooter, e-moped, and integrated mobility platforms—each with different operational models, technology stacks, and commercial structures. The difference between a successful deployment and a costly failure often comes down to procurement decisions: evaluation criteria, contract structure, and ongoing performance management. This guide provides procurement professionals with a framework for evaluating solutions, structured around lessons learned from successful and failed deployments across the EU.

Quick Answer

Effective micromobility procurement requires evaluation across five dimensions: operational capability (fleet management, maintenance, rebalancing), technology platform (data systems, integration standards, user experience), financial sustainability (unit economics, capitalization, contract structure), regulatory compliance (data sharing, accessibility, safety features), and integration potential (transit connections, MaaS compatibility, interoperability). Top-performing procurements use balanced scorecards rather than lowest-price selection, require performance bonds with meaningful penalties, mandate MDS data compliance, and structure contracts with revenue-sharing rather than pure licensing fees.

Why This Matters

Micromobility procurement decisions lock in outcomes for years. Contract terms typically run 3-7 years with renewal options, meaning today's vendor selection determines tomorrow's mobility landscape. Poor procurement decisions have resulted in:

• Operator failures mid-contract: Cities left without service when undercapitalized operators collapse
• Fleet degradation: Lowest-price vendors cutting maintenance, resulting in broken, unsafe vehicles
• Data access failures: Operators treating city data as proprietary, limiting planning and oversight
• Equity gaps: Services concentrated in affluent areas while underserved neighborhoods lack coverage
• Integration failures: Siloed systems that don't connect with transit or other mobility services

For EU cities, the procurement stakes are heightened by regulatory requirements. The EU's Mobility as a Service framework, accessibility directives, and data interoperability requirements create compliance obligations that procurement must address.

The European micromobility market is projected to reach €18 billion by 2027, with substantial public investment alongside private capital. Procurement decisions determine how this investment translates into public benefit.

Key Takeaways

• Use balanced scorecards weighting operational capability (30%), technology (25%), financial sustainability (25%), and integration/compliance (20%)
• Require performance bonds of 10-15% of contract value with clear trigger conditions for enforcement
• Mandate MDS (Mobility Data Specification) compliance as a baseline requirement for all micromobility procurements
• Structure contracts with revenue-sharing (10-25% of gross revenue) rather than flat licensing fees to align incentives
• Include equity requirements specifying minimum service levels in underserved areas
• Build contract flexibility for fleet size adjustment, technology updates, and integration requirements
• Require financial due diligence including capitalization verification and operating history review
• Establish clear KPIs with measurement methodology specified in the contract

The Basics: Understanding Evaluation Dimensions

Operational Capability Assessment

Operational execution determines whether a technically sound proposal translates into functional service. Key evaluation factors:

Fleet Management Experience

• Operating history: Prefer operators with 3+ years of continuous operation; require references from comparable markets
• Fleet size scaling: Evaluate track record of maintaining service quality during expansion
• Seasonal management: Assess capability to handle demand variation (winter maintenance, summer peaks)
• Crisis response: Review response to prior failures, accidents, or unexpected events

Maintenance Capabilities

• Maintenance facilities: Does the operator propose local maintenance or rely on third-party providers?
• Turnaround time: What is the typical time from incident report to vehicle return to service?
• Preventive maintenance: Is maintenance calendar-based or condition-based using vehicle sensors?
• Parts supply chain: How resilient is parts supply for proprietary versus standard components?

Rebalancing and Distribution

• Rebalancing methodology: Algorithm-driven versus reactive? Frequency and coverage?
• Equity compliance: How will operator ensure service in designated equity areas?
• Event management: Capability to surge capacity and manage distribution for major events

Technology Platform Evaluation

Technology infrastructure enables operations and determines integration capability:

Data Systems

• MDS compliance: Mandatory requirement; verify current compliance and version support
• GBFS support: General Bikeshare Feed Specification for journey planning integration
• Real-time APIs: Availability and reliability of real-time fleet data
• Data ownership: City retains ownership of all operational data; verify contract terms

User Experience

• App functionality: Journey planning, payment, lock/unlock reliability
• Accessibility: VoiceOver/TalkBack support, font sizing, color contrast
• Multimodal integration: Can app integrate transit information and routing?
• Payment options: Support for local payment methods, unbanked users, visitor access

Vehicle Technology

• Connectivity reliability: Cellular coverage gaps, offline capability
• Geofencing precision: Accuracy of parking zones, speed zones, no-ride zones
• Sensor capability: Accelerometers for incident detection, usage pattern data
• Swappable batteries: Ease of field battery swap for e-vehicles

Financial Sustainability Verification

Undercapitalized operators have failed mid-contract across multiple European cities. Verification requirements:

Capitalization and Backing

• Current funding: Verified bank statements, investor commitments
• Operating runway: Months of operation capital committed independent of revenue
• Parent company backing: If subsidiary, parent guarantee requirements
• Insurance coverage: Liability, vehicle, and business interruption coverage verification

Unit Economics Validation

• Operating cost disclosure: Require cost breakdown per vehicle per day
• Revenue projections: Validate assumptions against comparable market data
• Path to profitability: Clear articulation of profitability timeline and milestones
• Subsidy requirements: If subsidy needed, transparent and sustainable structure

Contract Structure Options

• License fee model: Operator pays fixed fee for operating rights; minimal city risk but limited upside
• Revenue share model: City receives percentage of gross revenue; aligns incentives, requires city audit capability
• Subsidy model: City provides operating subsidy; appropriate for equity service requirements
• Hybrid structures: Base fee plus revenue share; balances risk and reward

Decision Framework: Structuring the Evaluation Process

Phase 1: Market Assessment and Requirements Definition

Before issuing procurement documents, assess market conditions:

1. Market sounding: Informal engagement with potential operators to understand capabilities and interest
2. Benchmark analysis: Review comparable city procurements and outcomes
3. Stakeholder engagement: Transit agencies, disability advocates, neighborhood groups
4. Technical requirements: Define MDS version, integration requirements, accessibility standards

Phase 2: Procurement Document Development

Structure RFP/tender to elicit evaluable responses:

1. Mandatory requirements: MDS compliance, insurance minimums, accessibility standards, equity commitments
2. Scored criteria: Weighted evaluation across operational, technical, financial, and integration dimensions
3. Demonstration requirements: Live system demonstrations, reference site visits
4. Financial proposal format: Standardized format enabling comparison across different commercial structures

Phase 3: Evaluation and Selection

Apply consistent methodology:

1. Compliance screening: Eliminate non-compliant bids before scoring
2. Technical evaluation: Scored by evaluation panel against defined criteria
3. Financial evaluation: Normalize different commercial structures for comparison
4. Reference verification: Contact references from comparable deployments
5. Financial due diligence: Verify capitalization claims independently

Phase 4: Contract Negotiation and Finalization

Secure necessary protections:

1. Performance bond: 10-15% of contract value held against performance failures
2. KPI definitions: Specific metrics with measurement methodology and data sources
3. Remedy and cure periods: Process for addressing performance deficiencies before termination
4. Exit provisions: City rights to data, vehicles, and service continuity if operator exits
5. Change management: Process for adding requirements (new standards, integration needs)

Practical Examples

1. Barcelona Bicing: Long-Term Partnership Model

Barcelona's Bicing bike-share system demonstrates effective long-term procurement:

Procurement approach: Barcelona structured a 10-year concession with Pedalea Barcelona (Clear Channel joint venture), including a substantial city investment (€30 million in infrastructure) alongside private operation. The contract requires station density minimums across all neighborhoods and integrates with the city's T-mobilitat fare system.

Key contract features:

• Revenue share: City receives 15% of user revenue above baseline projections
• Equity requirements: Minimum 12 stations per 100,000 population across all districts
• Integration mandate: Full integration with T-mobilitat by year 3 (achieved in 2024)
• E-bike expansion: Contract amended in 2022 to add 1,000 e-bikes with adjusted revenue terms

Outcomes: Bicing achieved 110,000 annual subscribers and 16 million trips in 2024. Station uptime exceeded 98%. The equity requirement resulted in neighborhood stations in previously underserved areas achieving 85% of city-average utilization.

2. Rotterdam E-Scooter Tender: Performance-Based Selection

Rotterdam's 2023 e-scooter tender demonstrates performance-based procurement:

Procurement approach: Rotterdam issued an open tender scoring operators on safety record (25%), operational plan (25%), technology (20%), sustainability (15%), and financials (15%). Unlike many cities that prioritized revenue, Rotterdam weighted performance factors heavily.

Key contract features:

• Permit caps: Three operators selected with 1,500 vehicles each (scalable based on performance)
• Performance scoring: Quarterly scoring on response times, fleet availability, parking compliance
• Scaling mechanism: Top performer receives additional 500-vehicle allocation annually
• Termination triggers: Two consecutive quarters of performance failure enables permit revocation

Outcomes: The performance-based structure resulted in operators investing in operations rather than racing to lowest price. Parking compliance exceeded 90%, accident rates remained 40% below national averages, and the top performer (Tier) achieved utilization justifying fleet expansion.

3. Vienna WienMobil: Integrated MaaS Procurement

Vienna's WienMobil demonstrates integrated mobility platform procurement:

Procurement approach: Wiener Linien (Vienna transit authority) procured an integrated platform rather than separate micromobility services. The tender required a single app integrating transit, bike-share, scooter-share, and car-share with unified payment.

Key contract features:

• Integration mandate: All mobility services accessible through single WienMobil interface
• Data standards: Full MDS and NeTEx compliance required for all partners
• Revenue flow: Transit authority handles all user payments, distributing to operators
• Branding: Unified WienMobil branding across all services

Outcomes: WienMobil achieved 800,000 registered users by 2024, with 35% using multiple modes through the platform. Transit ridership in areas with strong micromobility integration increased 8%, countering regional ridership declines. The integrated approach created political support from transit unions concerned about mode competition.

Common Mistakes

Prioritizing Price Over Performance

Lowest-price selection has consistently produced poor outcomes in micromobility. Underfunded operators cut maintenance, reduce rebalancing, and eventually fail or exit. Weight operational capability and financial sustainability heavily; a premium price for a reliable operator costs less than dealing with mid-contract failure.

Insufficient Financial Due Diligence

Many failed micromobility deployments involved operators who appeared well-funded based on press releases but lacked committed capital. Require verified bank statements, not just investor commitments. Require parent company guarantees for subsidiaries.

Vague Performance Requirements

Contracts with general requirements ("maintain high service levels") rather than specific KPIs ("95% fleet availability, measured daily") enable disputes and limit enforcement. Define metrics precisely, specify data sources, and establish measurement methodology in the contract.

Missing Exit Provisions

When operators fail or exit, cities without strong exit provisions lose access to vehicles, data, and service continuity. Require city ownership of all operational data, escrow of critical vehicle software, and defined transition processes.

Ignoring Integration Requirements

Procuring micromobility separately from transit planning creates siloed services. Include MDS/GBFS compliance requirements, transit data integration mandates, and ideally coordinate procurement with transit authority.

FAQ

Q: Should cities require exclusivity or allow multiple operators?

A: Both models work; the choice depends on market size and city objectives. Exclusive contracts provide operator certainty enabling investment but concentrate risk. Multiple permits create competition but may result in over-supply and sustainability challenges. Most European cities with populations under 500,000 do well with single operators; larger cities often benefit from 2-4 competing operators with permit caps.

Q: How should equity requirements be structured?

A: Specify minimum service levels in defined equity zones (vehicles deployed, station density, rebalancing frequency) rather than general equity commitments. Include monitoring requirements and tie performance payments to equity zone performance. The most effective approaches define equity areas in consultation with community stakeholders and include equity metrics in the overall performance scorecard.

Q: What contract duration is appropriate?

A: Bike-share infrastructure investments justify longer terms (7-10 years) with renewal options. Free-floating scooter/e-bike permits work better with shorter terms (2-3 years) given rapid technology evolution. Include technology refresh requirements for longer contracts and performance-based renewal criteria rather than automatic extensions.

Q: How should cities handle operator consolidation?

A: The micromobility sector is consolidating; contracts should address potential operator mergers or acquisitions. Require city approval of contract assignment, maintain performance bonds through transitions, and include city termination rights if successor operator doesn't meet qualification criteria.

Action Checklist

• Conduct market sounding with potential operators before formal procurement
• Benchmark comparable city procurements to identify best practices and pitfalls
• Define mandatory requirements including MDS compliance, accessibility, and equity zones
• Develop weighted scoring criteria balancing operational, technical, financial, and integration factors
• Require demonstrated experience through reference verification and site visits
• Structure financial due diligence including capitalization verification and unit economics review
• Include performance bonds (10-15% of contract value) with clear enforcement triggers
• Define KPIs precisely with measurement methodology, data sources, and performance thresholds
• Establish exit provisions protecting city access to data, vehicles, and service continuity
• Coordinate procurement with transit agencies to ensure integration planning

Sources

• UITP (International Association of Public Transport). (2024). Micromobility Procurement Best Practices Guide.
• Eltis (European Local Transport Information Service). (2024). Shared Mobility Case Studies Database.
• European Commission. (2024). Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning Guidelines.
• Ajuntament de Barcelona. (2024). Bicing Service Performance Report.
• Open Mobility Foundation. (2024). MDS Implementation Guide for Cities.
• WienMobil. (2024). Platform Integration Case Study.
• POLIS Network. (2024). Micromobility Regulation and Procurement in European Cities.