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