HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 9-99RESOLUTION NO. 9" 9 9
A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT.
WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Bakersfield did, on the 28th day of
November, 1998, open, examine and publicly declare the sealed proposal(s) or bid(s)
offered for the purchase of a Mobile Powered Screening Unit by the City of Bakersfield;
and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1999, the City of Bakersfield received a written letter of
protest to the bid from Resource Process Machinery & Equipment, Inc. ("RPM"); and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1999, Ernesto Medina, Fleet Superintendent for the City
of Bakersfield, sent a written response to RPM addressing each of the items listed in
RPM's protest letter; and
WHEREAS, said written response from Ernesto Medina included specific advisory
language providing notice to RPM of the date and time the City Council of the City of
Bakersfield would consider the award, a contract for the purchase of the "Mobile Powered
Screening Unit," and consider all protests of the bid; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 1999, at the time and place of the meeting of the City
Council of the City of Bakersfield, no representative of RPM appeared before the City
Council to present the protest to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield
as follows:
1. The City Council of the City of Bakersfield finds and declares that:
The failure of RPM to appear before the City Council of the City of
Bakersfield constitutes a waiver of all protest by RPM; and
b,
The written protest submitted to the City of Bakersfield by RPM is
hereby overruled.
2. That the plans and/or specifications contained in the bid for the purchase of
a Mobile Powered Screening Unit are incorporated herein by reference and are hereby
approved and adopted.
3, That all of said bids except that next herein mentioned are hereby rejected.
Page I of 3
ORiGINAl..
4. That the contract for the purchase of a Mobile Powered Screening Unit by
the City of Bakersfield is hereby awarded to the lowest and best regular responsible
bidder, to wit: Re-Tech Division of Enviroquip Systems, Inc., at the price specified in its
proposal on file.
5. That the bid of Re-Tech Division of Enviroquip Systems, Inc., best meets
the particular requirements of the City of Bakersfield for the said service referred to herein,
and is of a quality, fitness and capacity which best serves the requirements of the City of
Bakersfield.
6. That the Mayor of the City of Bakersfield is hereby authorized and directed
to execute a contract on behalf of the City of Bakersfield with Re-Tech Division of
Enviroquip Systems, Inc., in accordance with said bid and the plans and/or specifications
hereinabove adopted by the City Council.
7. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized to return to each of the unsuccessful
bidders (if any), the bidder's bonds, certified checks and cashier's checks which
accompanied their respective bids for the above-mentioned purchase.
.......... o0o ..........
Page 2 of 3
PURCHASE ORDER
PAGE 1
PURCHASE ORDSR NO 993549
ACCOUNT NO. 51140535628068
CITY AGENCY PUBLIC WORKS
REQ. NO 0000014436
DATE 1/29/1999
SHOW PURCHASE ORDER
NUMBER ON ALL CASES,
PACKAGES AND INVOICES
RE-TECH DIV OF ENVIROQUIP SYS
341 KING STREET
MYERSTOWN PA 17067
14243
SEND ORIGINAL INVOICE TO:
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
DELIVER
TO:
BAKERS F I ELD
1.00
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
FLEET SERVICES DIVISION
4101 TRUXTUN AVE.
BAKERSFIELD CA 93309
1%/10 NET/30 1/29/1999 I RTOLBERT
m'l;ll I ;~/:1'2"1
HA ~ -MOBILE POWERED SCREEN UNIT AS PER SPECIFICATIONS
BID.
KIM BERRIGAN
~.~.w
158573.7500 158573.75
.TOTAL
~,,,'~l;:Lj:}l,' ~,, ,.~ :
'2~',;:.:,;.I%,BC,~,:..~ER,,:BiD, P. ESULTING FROM PUBLISHED SPECIFICATIONS
WHICH AR~ INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.
........... ':'..'~*AWaJlD~D:.BY COUNCIL ON 1-27-99'
!SUB-TOTAL :~q 158573.75
TAX 7.25% .... 11496.60
170070.35
~T~E D
SJGNAFURE
Resource Processi Ibf clti erj
Equipment,
1/05/99
Darlene Wisham
City of Bakers~eld
Purchasing Division
1501 Truxton Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Ms. Wisham:
Per our telephone conversation today, and subsequent receipt by fax of the proper course
of action required regarding a bid protest, please allow this letter to serve as our intent
to protest the bid for the "Portable Trommel Screen"
Our protest is made on several points including but not limited to the items listed below:
Notification of a Mandatory Onsite Demonstration:
We received a letter dated September 2, 1998 from Kevin Bames,
Director of Solid Waste Division of the Bakersfield Public Works Department
with an invitation to bid on the proposed screening plant. This letter clearly states in
bold full caps type: "THE SPECIFICATIONS WILL REQUIRE AN ONSITE
DEMONSTRATION OF THE SAME UNIT WHICH WILL BE BID" the letter
goes on to state that "Demonstrations must be made by October 8, 1998 to qualify for
the bid process." Two (2) other contacts were given in this letter to contact regarding
arranging of any demonstration.
To further underscore the necessity of the required onsite demonstration, we
received a follow up letter dated September 251h, 1998 advising us of an extension
to the demonstration period until 10/15/98
You probably recall our telephone conversation on 12/07/98 when we mentioned
the mandatory demonstration to you. It became obvious to us that you had not been
aware of this requirement to bid, and as you requested, we faxed you copies of the
letters along with a cover sheet that same day.
Our company went to great expense to properly equip and deliver a machine as well
as the expenses for me to travel to personally conduct our demonstration, which we
successfully completed in both types of material stated on 10/09/98.
Phone: (425) 339-1100 - Fa~ (425) 339-8800 · 3732 Smith Ave., P.O. BOx 12100, Everett, WA 98206
Website: http://www. heavy-equip.com/rpm- E-mail: rpm~.everett.cotn
RPM Equipment, Inc.
page two
5. At this point we are concerned about which of the bidders did in fact conduct the
required demonstration as we did, and especially if the apparent low bidder completed
a demonstration.
6. According to your own stated requirements, unqualified bidders may have been
allowed to bid on this equipment which alone should void this bid
,
The letter also states that specifications were being developed and would be sent to us
in mid-September. We did not receive our bid package until December 10th, 1998
only 18 calendar days fyom the bid opening.
Arbitrary Judgement of Equipment:
Our primary contact at the city early on was James Scrivano. We were verbally given
a set of production performance perameters of 120 cubic yards of "finished" product
per hour with acceptable "tailings" or "reject" material. Screen size for anyone
providing a demonstration was to be set at 3/8" for the "finished" product, or
"fines" We determined the size of machine we would need to pass the demonstration
and arranged to deliver a brand new machine equipped with the proper size screens.
We did in fact meet the guidelines and "passed" the required demonstration
with our machine. At some later point, we were advised verbally that the production
target number was raised to 140 cubic yards per hour. This seems totally unreasonable
and unfair. We are concerned as to how the process of changing performance
specifications was determined. We are also concerned that the "pass/no pass"
determination of the demonstrations can be arbitrarily judged to begin with. In either
case, the city should have released specifications in mid-September as indicated before
having vendors incur the considerable expense of delivering machines for
demonstrations without even knowing the actual performance numbers.
,
The above referenced production numbers were with regards to the compost material.
In the test of the road sand material, our machine was producing 190 cubic yards per
hour. I was told that this was the best production obtained in this type of material.
Lack of Proper Notice of bid addenda:
Our proper address was not provided to the Purchasing Department. We originally
received mail addressed to both our physical address and our PO Box. By the time we
received our bid package, only our PO Box was listed- and incorrectly. Our PO box is
12100 and the bid package was sent to PO Box 1210. At~er our other correspondence
and handing out business cards onsite, we are curious as to how our address was
incorrectly relayed to the Purchasing Department.
RPM Equipmere, inc.
page three
2. Although the original bid package was delivered by the Post Office to our PO Box
with the incorrect address, we never did receive a copy of a very important addenda to
the bid. We received this addenda by fax from you for the first time today.
This addenda was for a very expensive option which was included in our bid,
and had the effect of rendering our bid uncompetitive. The addenda notice was
originated on December 15, 1998 With mail time and considerations for the
holidays, this was not much lead time prior to the bid opening.
The list of qualified bidders who successfully completed a demonstration could not be
all that long, and due to the time frame, we question the lack of notice by fax,
telephone, registered mail etc. Faxes had been sent previously as notice of the
demonstrations, intent to bid etc.
5. Our bid package as submitted indicated on the "Addenda Information LabeF'
that "no addenda" had been received.
We are very curious why this particular original specification was reversed by the
addenda so late in the process. Our understanding is that this option may not
be available to all engine manufacturers, and may have been circumvented in favor
of a particular vendor(s) who would not be able to meet the specification.
At this point in time, we feel at the very least this bid should be nullified to avoid
the appearance of favoritism or the designed exclusion of particular vendor(s).
With respects to our expenses incurred for what now appears to have been an unnecessary
demonstration, we would have no other option but to charge the city for our expenses.
At this point we hope we can avoid legal remedies to the questions raised here.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best Regards,
Scott Bride
President
BAKE
R SFIEL
PUBI,IC WORKS DEPARTMENT
4101 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSI:IELI). CA 93309
(805) 326-379S
RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR · CITY ENGINEER/JOE A. LOZANO, PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS MANAGER
January 12, 1999
Scott Bride, President
RPM EQUIPMENT, INC.
3732 Smith Avenue
P.O. Box 12100
Everett, Washington 98206
RE: RESPONSE TO RPM'S LETTER OF JANUARY 5, 1999 REGARDING PROTEST OF BID
Dear Mr. Bride:
RPM's letter refers to a bid for the "Portable Trommel Screen." By this we assume RPM means .the
"Mobile Screening Plant" bid opened on November 28, 1998. The bid was not limited to trommels. We will,
therefore, answer the points contained in RPM's letter relative to the bid. As for other points which RPM's
letter alludes to, we cannot answer them without additional information.
Notification of a Mandatory Onsite Demonstration:
1 .&2.
RPM's letter correctly repeats the City's earliest correspondence which informed prospective vendors
of the required demonstration to be made by October 8, 1998. However, RPM and others needed
more time. In order to include RPM and others in the bid, the demonstration time was extended to
October 15, 1998. RPM's letter fails to mention that, during RPM's October 9, 1998 demonstration,
RPM requested a second time extension in order to demonstrate another unit. City staff offered to
work with RPM on this and waited well beyond the October 15, 1998 deadline, exchanging many
telephone calls as RPM "sought permission from CAL TRANS to transport the unit". Though RPM
did not demonstrate the other unit as promised, City staff gave RPM the benefit of the doubt by telling
RPM the unit could be demonstrated after the bid if RPM was the apparent lowest qualified bidder.
3. The Solid Waste Division scheduled the demonstration independent of the Purchasing Office.
The Solid Waste Division understands conducting onsite demonstrations is a cost of doing business,
and we appreciate the efforts extended by RPM and several other participating firms. Because RPM
could not move the machine away from our site, we provided RPM with several weeks of free
storage until the unit could be taken away at your convenience.
The apparent tow bidder did conduct a successful onsite demonstration, as did several others. Still
others conducted unsuccessful demonstrations.
RPM's letter does not indicate which requirements it is referring to. In any event, bidders not
providing a successful onsite demonstration were not considered.
,
The bid specification mailing date was not a problem for other prospective bidders. Most of the delay
occurred as a result of waiting for RPM to schedule a demonstration of its second unit, which in fact
never occurred.
Scott Bride, President
RPM EQUIPMENT, INC.
Re: Response to RPM's Letter of January 5, 1999 Regarding Protest of Bid
January 12, 1999
Page 2
Arbitrary Judgment of Equipment:
This is correct; however, screen operatom know 120 yds./hr. of "finished" product requires
significantly more than that amount of infeed, since not all of the infeed material becomes "finished"
product.
a=
RPM implies it "passed" at 120 yd./hr., and claims the target was subsequently raised to
140. This is not the case, because the measurement occurred at the infeed instead of the
output as discussed in #1 above. The 140 yds./hr. infeed is reasonable for the expected
output of 120 yds./hr. "finished" product. Furthermore, the City was considering raising the
infeed goal to 160 yds./hr. because of other high-performance demonstrations. However,
we kept the infeed goal at 140 yds./hr. to allow RPM's machine to qualify because it had
other useful features.
A "pass/no pass" determination based on infeed volumes cannot be arbitrarily judged,
because RPM and all other prospective vendors witnessed, counted, and agreed with the
actual volumes handled.
Again, the delay was largely due to waiting on a second demonstration by RPM which never
occurred· All participants seemed comfortable providing a demonstration based on the
stated requirements.
3. Not applicable to the bidding process.
Lack of Proper Notice of Bid Addenda:
In checking our records, the City found a typographic error in RPM's P.O. Box number in the mailing
list typed from RPM's magazine advertisement. Once mailing lists are made, subsequent
correspondence is sent to the same address until someone requests a change. We do note RPM
received two letters at that address in Septembgr, and waited until after the bid in December to
inform the City of the correct address.
2. The City has no control over the U.S. Post Office and its delivery, or non-delivery of mail.
According to the dollar value for this item as stated by RPM by telephone, RPM's bid would remain
uncompetitive even if adjusted for the item. No other bidder expressed concern the December 15,
1998 addenda date was too late,
4. No other bidder expressed concern about the method of transmittal for the addenda.
RPM's bid package printing was blurred by water damage before the City received it. The "none
received" looks like "one received"; thus, RPM's bid was received and opened.
The specification changed because a reversible cooling fan turned out to be unavailable from al_JI
Other vendors. This news caused the addenda to be issued.
Scott Bride, President
RPM EQUIPMENT, INC.
Re: Response to RPM's Letter of January 5, 1999 Regarding Protest of Bid
January 12, 1999
Page 3
City staf~ will recommend the award of the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. RPM's letter
has been received and will be processed as an appeal to the award. The City council will hear RPM's bid
protest on January 27, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City
Council Chambers in City Hall located at 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301. For further
information on the time and place of the hearing please contact the City Clerk at (805) 326-3767.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ernesto Medina
Fleet Superintendent
KB:smp
CC~
Joe Lozano, Public Works Operations Manager
Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Director
Purchasing File