Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOES 24-04PICKERING REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: OES 24-04 Date: July 22, 2004 From: W. Douglas Fire Chief Subject: Supply and Delivery of one Fire Pumper Vehicle Q-29-2004 Recommendation: 1. That Report OES 24-04 regarding the supply and delivery of a Fire Pumper Vehicle be received and that: Quotation No. Q-29-2004 submitted by Smeal Fire Apparatus for the supply and delivery of a Fire Pumper Vehicle in the amount of $378,000.00 (GST extra) be accepted; 3. The total gross purchase cost $404,460.00 and a net purchase cost of $378,000.00 be approved; 4. Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance the purchase through the issuance of debt; A) B) C) D) Debt financing not exceeding the amount of $378,000 for a period not exceeding 10 years, at a rate to be determined, be approved; and Financing and repayment charges in the amount of approximately $48,500 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing in 2005 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this loan and the repayment thereof falls within the City's Debt and Financial Obligations approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt and other financial obligations for 2004 as established by the Province for municipalities in Ontario; The Treasurer be authorized to take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing: and 5. Staff at the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect thereto. Report OES 24-04 Subject: Supply & Delivery of Fire Pumper Vehicle Q-29-2004 Date: July 22, 2004 Page 2 Executive Summary: Not Applicable Financial Implications: 1. Approved Source of Funds 2004 Capital Budget Debt (10 years) Account 2240/6157 Proiect Code 04-2240-001-01 Total Approved Funds Amount $380,000 $380,000 Estimated Project Costing Summary Q-29-2004 Fire Pumper Vehicle Less Trade-in 1986 SuperiodMack Pumper Sub Total G.S.T. P.S.T. (not applicable) Total Gross Purchase Cost G.S.T. Rebate Total Net Purchase Cost $388,000 HO,O00) 378,000 26,460 4O4,460 (26,460) $378,000 Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $2,000 The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has reviewed the budgetary implications and the financing of the expenditures contained in this report and concurs. CO2000-07/22 Report OES 24-04 Subject: Supply & Delivery of Fire Pumper Vehicle Q-29-2004 Date: July 22, 2004 Page 3 Background: The purchase of a Fire Pumper Vehicle was approved by Council in the 2004 Capital Budget. Through research and analysis of current emergency response apparatus, Fire Services compiled specifications for this piece of equipment. Supply & Services invited seven (7) vendors to participate in the bidding process of which four (4) have submitted quotations. Upon careful examination of all quotations received by Supply & Services, the Pickering Fire Services Division recommends acceptance of the bid from Smeal Fire Apparatus in the amount of $378,000.00 (GST extra) and that this total net purchase cost of $378,000.00 be approved. This report has been prepared in conjunction with the Manager Supply & Services who concurs with the foregoing. Attachments: 1. Supply & Services Memorandum 2. Pickering Fire Services Memorandum Prepared By: W. Douglas Fire Chief Vera Felgemache~ Manager, Supply & Services Director, Operations & Emergency Services ~-~I~s)A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer WD:nrm Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City. Ceuacil CO2000-07/22 CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLY & SERVICES MEMORANDUM July 6, 2004 To: From: Subject: Mark Diotte Deputy Fire Chief Bob Kuzma Purchasing Analyst Quotation fOr Fire Pumper Vehicle Quotation No. Q-29-2004 Closing: June 16, 2004, 12:00. Noon Quotations were invited from seven (7) companies on June 2, 2004 of which four (4) have responded by the closing date and time noted above and one "unable to bid" (Dependable Emergency Vehicles). Quotations shall be irrevocable for 90 days after the official closing date and time. Summary: Account Number - Project Code - Approved Capital Budget- Financing - 2240-6157 04-2240-001-01 $380,000.00 Debt(10 year) Resqtech Smeal Fire Seagrave Fire Description Darch Fire $ Systems Inc~$ Apparatus $ Apparatus Co.$ Part A, Sections 1-6, Base Custom Chassis 373,013.21 381,500.00 388,000.00 418,720.00 Less Trade-in (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (10,000.00) (10,000.00) i Sub-Total 367,013.21 376,500.00 378,000.00 408,720.00 G.S.T. 25,690.92 26,355.00 26,460.00 28,611.00 Total 392,704.13 402,855.00 404,460.00 437,331.00 After calculation check 393,774. 13 402,855.00 404,460.00 437,330.40 Delivery (days) 300 325 270 290 Upcharge - raised roof 3,500.00 No bid Included in price 3,415.00 Partial quote: Part B Section 1, 39,675.50 118,906.00 Optional Equipment 104,066.63 After calculation 98,499.00 After calculation check: 37,850.50 check: 96,934.00 Down payment of } If chassis paid for 15% at contract Assumption: upon delivery to signing, chassis Payment Terms Net 30 upon Rosenbauer Assumption: Net payment upon delivery America - 30 upon delivery arrival at the $6,500 discount facility, balance upon delivery Quotation No. Q-29-2004 /~c:~ 20~ ~ Mark Diotte ~.~ July 6, 2004 Page 2 Bidders were requested within the Supplementary Quotation Terms & Conditions (SQTC) and Specifications to include a variety of documents with their submittal. Based upon the instructions given in the SQTC and Specifications, the submittals have been thoroughly reviewed so as to locate the documentation requested. A summary of this review is attached for your information. Copies of the quotations are attached for your review along with the summary of costs. Each line item provides a space for the vendor to indicate a "Yes, No, Specify" to provide the City with information and details to subjectively review each line item and the sum total of all specifications. Specifications Item 4 states: Where a minimum is called for, the item shall meet or exceed the capacity, size or performance specified. 1. A mark in the "yes" space shall mean compliance with the specification and can be further detailed in the SPECIFY space. 2. A mark in the "no" space shall mean a deviation from the specification and must be further detailed in the SPECIFY space. Deviations will be evaluated and acceptance of these deviations is within the discretion of the user department. The quotation submitted by Darch Fire in the total amount of $392,704.13 the Iow quotation, subject to further evaluation of the terms, conditions and specifications of fire pumper vehicle quoted upon and Fire Services requirements. In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 04.05 (revised 2004), an award exceeding $79,600 is subject to Council approval. Include in your report to Council: 1. if reference information is acceptable the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged and the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; 2. Treasurer's confirmation of funding; 3. related departmental approvals; 4. any reason(s) why the Iow bid of Darch Fire is not acceptable; 5. summary memorandum from Supply & Services; and 6. related comments specific to the acquisition. Bidders will be advised of the outcome in due course. Please do not disclose pricing to enquiring bidders. Subject to Council approval, an approved "on-line" requisition will also be required to proceed. you require further information, please feel free to contact me. Bob Kuzm~' /b Attachments Copy for: Director, Operations & Emergency Services Fire Chief ATTACHMENT# / TO~EPORT# CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLY & SERVICES MEMORANDUM July 6, 2004 To: From: Subject: Mark Diotte Deputy Fire Chief Vera A. Felgemacher Manager, Supply & Services Review of Submittals Quotation for Fire Pumper Vehicle Quotation No. Q-29-2004 The purpose of this memorandum is to report upon the initial revieTM and analysis of this quotation call, as conducted by Supply & Services and to provide a recommendation as how to proceed. It was apparent after quotation closing, submittals received by the City required an extensive review to determine if requested documents were included with each submittal within the requirements of the quotation call. An extensive review was required for an objective look at all submittals based upon the terms, conditions and instructions within the quotation document. A collective group, Bob Kuzma (Supply & Services) Grant Smith (Fleet Operations) and yourself (Fire Services) reviewed the submittals to determine which documents were received in addition to the quotation (pricing) page. In addition, Supply & Services independently reviewed the submittals. This included a review of the instructions, clarity of terms and specifications and the meaning and the purpose of each requirement requested by the City. Each bidder was contacted for the City to clarify documentation and omissions, as might be the case. Where irregularities or omissions had occurred, possible causes were determined and the practice of fair and equal treatment of all bidders was undertaken. A review of the interpretation of the whole quotation and each of its parts was conducted for assurance of the integrity of the bidding process and to serve the best interests of the City. These tasks had to be undertaken during the first phase of the evaluation process before a determination could be made as to which, if any quotation could proceed to the 2® phase, evaluation of specifications. Review of Submittals - Q-29-2004 Mark Diotte July 6, 2004 Page 2 The following questions were posed as the review was undertaken: Was the City clear on its meaning and expectation; Could a bidder feel his/her interpretation of the instruction and subsequent drawing, sample, explanation etc. be exactly what the City wants to see; Is it truly non-compliant or somewhat deficient; if what has been received isn't what was expected by the City, why; - Could there have been cause for misinterpretation; is documentation available at this point, before the vehicle is built i.e. booster tank specifications and NFPA 4.19.1 document sample- a bidder has advised that the NFPA 4.19.1 document is typically provided upon delivery. As noted in the attached Review of Documents Summary, there are varying degrees of documentation received or not received based upon the reference provided by the City in the quotation document? Each submittal has attempted to provide one version or another of what was understood to be included with the documentation (diagram, explanation, sample etc.) or a reasonable version thereof. Standard Quotation Terms & Conditions Item 13 - Bid Acceptance states the following: "The City reserves the right to waive irregularities and omissions, if in so doing the best interests of the City will be serviced. No liability shall accrue to the City for any decision in this regard". Therefore, without precedence, based on the foregoing review and subsequent findings, it is recommended irregularities and omissions be waived so as to enable Fire Services to evaluate the fire pumper vehicles and specifications being quoted upon, in so doing the best interests of the City will be served. To this end, thank you for your assistance and co-operation to date during this process. If you require further information or assistance, f~el free to contact me at extension 2152 or Bob Kuzma at extension 2131. ~ Vera A.-,?Felgemacher /vf attachment copy: Director, Operations & Emergency Services Fire Chief OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE SERVICES DIVISION MEMORANDUM July 22, 2004 To: W.T. Douglas Fire Chief From: M. Diotte Deputy Chief Subject: Quotation For Fire Pumper Vehicle - File: FS1001 In the year 2004 capital funds of $380,000 were authorized by council, Account # 2240-6157 Project Code 04-2240-001-01, for the replacement of the 1986 Superior/Mack pumper currently in our fleet. Members of the Pickering Fire Services completed detailed specifications with assistance from Grant Smith Supervisor, Fleet Operations and Bob Kuzma from Supply and Services to ensure the needs of Pickering Fire Services were met and demonstrated in a concise manner conforming to City policy. There were seven manufacturers invited to bid with four submitting quotations. Three of these quotations were within budget allocations - Darch Fire ("American Lafrance"), RESQTECH Systems Inc. ("Rosenbauer") and SAFETEK Emergency Vehicles ("Smeal"). The fourth bidder Seagrave Fire Apparatus Company ("Seagrave") was over budget and immediately eliminated from the competition. In concert with Grant Smith, Captain John Hagg, Bob Kuzma and myself a comparative analysis was conducted on the submitted bids - these results were reflected in the memorandum dated July 6TM, 2004 from Bob Kuzma. Subsequently in a memorandum from Vera Felgemacher dated July 6th, 2004 it was confirmed that fire services complete a further detailed analysis of the quotation documentation. During the week of July 19th, 2004 fire services completed the detailed analysis on the three bids. It was during this analysis that an error by Darch Fire (lowest bidder) was found and confirmed that costing of agreed to specifications were found to be missing from the overall pricing of the apparatus. With the discovery of this information Darch Fire requested that their bid be removed from the table due to their inability to meet the costs as reflected by their quotation. The final two bids remained were carefully reviewed. Based upon the costs and the following information I am recommending that the City of Pickering accept the quotation submitted by SAFETEK Emergency Vehicles ("Smeal"): 2 The "Smeal" bid includes the following additional items: A raised roof in the overall price that was not confirmed in the "Rosenbauer" bid. The value added estimated cost for such an item would be approximately $5,000.00. Aluminum checker plate hose bed covers versus an ordinary vinyl hose bed cover. This item will reduce overall truck maintenance costs and protect hose loads from the environment. The value added estimated cost for such an item would be approximately $5,000.00 3. Shorter delivery time by 55 days. Conclusion: Although the "Rosenbauer" bid was $1,500 less than the "Smeal" bid, the relative value added of the raised roof and tread plate hose bed covers make the "Smeal" bid the lowest in realized costs. Costs: Description Part A, Sections 1-6 Base Custom Chassis SAFETEK Emergency Vehicles ("Smeal") 388,000 RESQTECH Systems Inc. ("Rosenbauer") 381,500 Less Trade in - 1986 (10,000) (5,000) Superior/Mack Sub-Total $378,000 $376,500 0 0 GST 0% (rebated) PST 0% 0 Budget allocation 2240-6157 04-2240-001-01 $380,000.00 The decision has been discussed amongst the available members of the Pickering Fire Services Apparatus Committee, Grant Smith Supervisor, Fleet Operations and Bob Kuzma, Supply and Services with unanimous support. Two members of the Pickering Fire Services committee were not available for their comments. I trust that this recommendation will assist you in determining which of the bidders will construct our new pumper. As always, if you have any questions regarding this process or recommendation, please contact the undersigned for clarification. J:\... \Q uotation_lVterno.d cc