HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 12 - Siren Warning System .?a-
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRUNO RUMBELOW, CITY MANAGER
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2009
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF AN
OUTDOOR SIREN WARNING SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council to consider awarding a contract to DH Marketing as the local representative
of Federal Signal for the purchase and installation of an outdoor warning system in the
total amount of $335,480.20. A copy of the proposal criteria ranking and justification for
the recommendation is attached for review.
FUNDING
Funds are available in 121-48860-210-09-000001 Council Quality of Life
Fund/Machinery and Equipment/Fire in the amount of$370,000.
BACKGROUND:
Request for proposals were issued at the request of the Emergency Management
Coordinator and proposal documents were issued in accordance with Local Government
Code Chapter 271, Subchapter H, Section 271.116. The proposal advertisement posted
in the Fort Worth Star Telegram on January 1, 2009 and January 8, 2009. Staff issued
proposal documents to 12 contractors. Six contractors specializing in outdoor warning
systems submitted offers. The proposal document established criteria for evaluating the
qualifications of each contractor. A tabulation of the criteria ranking and justification for
the recommendation is attached for review.
The Emergency Management Coordinator initiated a program to upgrade the outdoor
warning siren for the City of Grapevine. The program was presented to Council at the
November 4, 2008 Council meeting. The upgrade includes replacement of nine existing
sirens, installation of additional sirens to improve siren coverage within the city,
implementation of a new computer controller, and integration of a battery back-up
system to allow for siren system operation during utility outages.
The current City of Grapevine siren system consists of 11 sirens placed strategically
throughout the city. The majority of the siren system was installed 30 years ago. Within
the current siren system, all sirens are tied directly to electricity and cannot function
when power is lost. This proves to be problematic as two sirens routinely lose power
during extreme weather conditions.
February 12,2009(9:04AM)
A budget request was made and Council approved the purchase of a new system for
installation during the current fiscal year.
Request for proposals were issued to twelve contractors on December 19, 2008 to solicit
offers for the purchase and installation of the system. In accordance with the proposal
procedures, Staff included five categories of criteria in the proposal specifications on
which the proposals would be judged. A percentage value was established for each of
the criteria. The criteria set out and the percentage value assigned was as follows:
1. Effectiveness of the proposed system 30%
2. Scope of the services offered. Technology offered and project schedule 25%
3. Relevant experience and references 20%
4. Financial viability and firm stability 10%
5. Price and cost of total ownership 15%
All proposals received were turned over to the Emergency Management Coordinator and
the Technical Services Manager for review and ranking of the proposals received. Each
of the responders was given a ranking score based on the percentage value assigned to
each of the criteria. A copy of the bid tabulation that includes the ranking scores, a
pricing summary detail and a justification of the recommended ranking is attached for
review.
Of the six proposals received, DH Marketing (representing Federal Signal) was
determined to have the highest score of the six proposals received. See attached memo
from the Emergency Management Coordinator. The total cost of the original proposal
received from DH Marketing was $415,904.20. This proposal was based on galvanized
poles on concrete piers.
In accordance with the proposal procedures, Staff then requested a meeting with DH
Marketing personnel to discuss their proposal, negotiate terms and receive a best and
final offer. During the negotiations, Staff requested revised pricing based on direct bury
concrete poles and the reuse of existing poles provided that they would meet the
specifications of the siren heads. The revised pricing provided by DH Marketing was on
direct bury concrete poles and reduced the cost to $335,480.20. Staff also requested
and received changes to the delivery, payment and warranty terms.
Staff recommends approval of a contract award to DH Marketing for the purchase and
installation of an outdoor warning system in the total amount of$335,480.20
CD
February 12,2009(9:04AM)
Amok
MEMORANDUM GRAPEVINE FIRE DEPARTMENT
TO: R. Charles Dent, Purchasing Agent
FROM: Carrie Little,Emergency Management Coordinator
DATE: February 5,2009
RE: Siren Vendors
Below,please find justification for the selection of DH Marketing/Federal Signal as the vendor
of choice for the new outdoor warning siren system. Additional comments follow as to why other
vendors were not selected.
Federal Signal
Federal Signal proposed a mixed-use system of both tone warning sirens and voice capable
warning sirens. Federal Signal proposed to place the voice capable warning sirens along the
Main Street Corridor and in the Lake Park areas where the City routinely has large gatherings of
individuals in outdoor settings. While other vendors also provided costs for voice capability,the
costs were in addition to the proposal, as an option. The voice capable sirens allow for pre-
recorded messages,public address from the activation site, and uses text-to-speech functionality.
With the text-to-speech capability, management could remotely connect to the system and type a
message to be broadcast from the selected sites.
Federal Signal is the only vendor to allow for the actual siren site to be used as a repeater. The
Federal Signal"Digipeat"feature allows individual sites to be utilized as a repeater, eliminating
potential coverage issues that may exist when using radio frequencies to signal the sirens. This
allows for redundancy in the system.
The activation of the siren system may be accomplished from a central controller, desktop
computer tied to the controller, or via a web interface. The encrypted web interface allows for
activation of the siren system by authorized personnel (password protected) from any computer
regardless of location.
Federal Signal representatives toured the City of Grapevine prior to proposal submission
conducting surveys to take into account topography,vegetation, and ambient noise level. Using
the knowledge gained,the proposed siren sites ensure coverage of all residential areas, outdoor
gathering sites, and commercial corridors.
Gifford Electric
The Gifford Electric proposal added two siren sites to the existing eleven siren sites. The
Amok
proposal further called for reuse of the existing siren controllers and computer system. The
proposal pricing was based upon the use of galvanized steel poles and piers. When additional
pricing was requested for the use of concrete poles (a significant cost savings in other proposals)
the pricing for the Gifford Electric proposal remained the same.
ATI Systems
The proposal indicated two distinct siren system options. Option one whereby the existing siren
piers and poles would be utilized was not considered. The second option, locating the sirens in
optimal locations based upon GIS noise contour files was significantly higher priced. The
proposal also indicated that should maintenance work need to be completed on the siren,the
siren would be taken out of service, shipped to Boston(the factory location),then returned. This
was not considered acceptable. Additionally the five month construction timeframe was
excessive.
American Signal Corporation
American Signal proposed utilizing existing equipment for two of the siren sites. Additionally,
the proposal utilized nine existing siren poles. While, requested in the RFP, a central control
station was not priced in the base proposal, only included as an option. Additionally,the software
proposed in the central control station used an outdated operating system no longer utilized
within public safety departments.
The proposal had a"rock clause"in which would switch the pricing to "cost-plus" in the event
that when digging for a siren site, rocks were encountered.
American Communications
The American Communications proposal did not allow for computer activation of the system.
While the system could be activated remotely, the activation required a hand held encoder. The
sirens proposed by American Communications were not UL Listed as requested in the RFP. The
proposal called for the new sirens to be placed in the existing siren locations—leaving coverage
issues unanswered. Finally, the proposed timeline was greater than three months.
SafetyCom,Inc.
The SafetyCom proposal required additional equipment and programming to meet the frequency
shift keying functionality requested for security at each site. The SafetyCom proposal suggested
seventeen sites which would lead to additional long-term maintenance costs. Additionally,the
proposal came in at approximately one-third higher for a Whelen siren system than the proposal
from a competing Whelen vendor.
0• 0 o e
� OM �
Total " 4C)
00e000
Carrie Little N N — n
eee0e ■
0 N N
Gifford Electric Mark Bills
0 0) a)
o0n000o n e1
re-- n
Total u) r> r> r- a
000000
LOV CO n o n
Carrie Little
eee000
SafetyCom,Inc. Mark Bills
eeeeee:
Oocon el co
Total O NO
eeeeee
0 N 10 CO n 0 CO
Carrie Little
0 0 0000
ATI Systems Mark Bills
M r ( co
N CO
ee00001 op
Total
M M "
N
eeeeee
• Cal CO n
Carrie Little
NN r' CO
eeeeee
oto oo o
American Communication Mark Bills
eeeeee
CO CD M ' co
Total
R
eeeeee
CO N OOCo
Carrie Little
Nco .sAF'ui3!.
eeeeee
M N N 0 O o
Denwalt-Hollingsworth, In Mark Bills
eeeeee
O a- N O M
Total Score v M N N
Dee0e0
O r n O N 0
Carrie Little N N CO
eeeeee
American Signal Corp Mark Bills N▪ N ao
C 0
QO eeeeee
M N N n 0N - a- O 00U ,r
C
W U
1-
ce
U F-
v
E N
) C)
ca "r)
o2 0 o
- aa 2 ca
C N d JJ
c 0 c V C
QyL -OIo OE o
E y o c
a� O w = 8
1" 0 8W 0o
rL `a c m 3
U N 2 °' .E of C)
CO 0p ocow 5 m 0 E c
_ W �p �p
0 D M 2 co V N m �p v U U T
Q Q N 2 al 8 a) m c g N N N 4'
» i coi d � •c o 'c o •— E E m
W W Wf3QLLCL () C) ' QQQV)
4*e
§ ) �n � N CD
om§ r- \
\ #/§2 5
0) xa� � R£ f
2o222uj/ 2e >
S zo— .0 9�
cD - # %/£ 2m
% to ne §[(
£ < DQ 7
cO c §) CO
oN � \j0§\ )
n o0Ea) c >
oo »m§ � #
ke/ § )/2Bk
a a«a
m §ƒ § ! � n » a
;£ G
)k §
Q4t .
;\ � §
| � ((A, 02 $A )
>
o — } q z„r
337 ka\ 2 ;-I
E § nnn ,-
§ % §/ .-£ CE n§ 2
o
a
km
E '0 o § ®
\ I� 0 �k \s ƒ >
o0CD 0co .
k^ �\ � )\ � k �
Q)E > < = GCC
/ k� a \k\,-
- • })) §f# (2f■ \r § )
fi & el� . /N5 � a
' -9 # =k o =°§ § >)'3Zc0k
o > o a . c' —
� /f§/K/c‘i co
E4o § � -
A«( 2 $
CO K
cz\�}\* • a)
R]kk �w > l u
3 §) §� % §
> < � .aco 6 -I z z
i @aaa#& §
(47')8 R c1 §
» ° a
co
a) 2' 0 0
j \ E/ E co
/
2E . )m a
/ J ci . / 0
f 5 ; f8 8. »
2 # ]\& �« <
� ° k\} ) na) /
ii •
z / k� k' E0 0° 8 %76
-0 ƒ � °/ . O� ` cEE
a� R-- § 0Aw » b” 30E # o
0 - , a ° g ° 2o2»E< \ s <£o.
-
voo _ a} c
2 ;3f#E kt �� ccfk 0c o8 0_ A? CD
_§ 2JGI-ƒ jE]Ce}f �J) .2ƒa //f
-
ovov
N
O m 0 m
O O O O O
aMZMZ
� M fO 10_
It 1 12 1;
O pAWU' 'C r
aON gEu. 34U>
0 ' wt Po o1"-
N '- >0coLL O3 Di
O 70 O v
,:r mm°im
K1 Z Z o Z
N U Q m re O
£ Q
2 C C O Y N
5
* ,
O) m O m M J N
o E
N 02"m Yj-. 3 >
W c N J m-C
EN'_ >v)�zcov)
s O'000
0 N 6 mO N r
• u,Zcorn
C O 6 ID v (N9
O M N N
f9 fA f9
0 .. .. .,-;; ,-ii N 6
O * E rn
O , C' $ a) m Ci 7 0
7. 0 'p 00E01.03 >
O >3 m n m >
So Q Z V)'H . CO
Qm ,- > QcOl)W 10J
vvry
N mm `*. m
E O
0
O N °m ZZaZ
0
03 0 O N. N> )- 22 r W Cl) C y 0 QO
f M V
O c_ c E + X D. •E • el Epu)I cc o
O alit x � c 0 L"
ZN 00 0 •0 accW��''
O 7 W E Pi)N r 0 ,A a;,.
dA MOLL > QNI a°x
• ai .. N O•0 O v
6 L) Nm Nm
0 EE 0 C N C 00 O
LL E2 = u) oZVZ
O z c r S r N can
LLn�11 C N= CI— ',1 0) 0
Vr C O Ct * 3 of o C m
z01 IY ' � -N
O
>Omynx Z � °ce od = c, rn 0 N �
Wa > 0J
11)CO
N v v 0 0
O O
m > m m m 0 0
EL Q °� $ mZZ V .-
O C N p N LS
Cl) C) N N e"
CO38 6 69 fa v
* C/) N> m
SLY 8� c4 v w
C CON N CO Z
> < crM0) rn z° z
d4 ■
yO
irg a
aA.
7.23- y
.V o L
y
a V
m 0 a1) o22 . a E
O N c 0
c „ 0rnm
C C o 0 o.°0 v
O p C p,a N
O.} 0
a 0 CXc<
I- .L1 L4 o c
> > Z 0
a) 03COaNmySo Li w
> 0)cm > > m y c N E
m .t..L. v c m
W H .1I Tom, N
C � p8 v a• a> >. >,° a '° as LLi E C E
v1 O -pp E
-,F. V)m No W O. _ . O F 0 0
N
0 0 ca 0• cO,o Q p 'Es 6 Q •
S20 E o
r! OmdtAnaCcc,ciri 03K °�J �LPmm
w 0V:.''0O CCl_ CO 00 -1 "�caa)
> Z<OI-UUddd6.Z coz xQ>W QLL
PRICING SUMMARY DETAIL
DH MARKETING/FEDERAL SIGNAL
RANKING SCORE: 178%
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL PRICING OFFERED:
-(9)2001-130&(1) Eclipse8 ACIDC Sirens(2-wayIUHF)
(City provided RadioslGalvanized PoleslPiers) $265,924.00
-(3)MOD6048 Electronic Sirens(2-wayl UHF)(City Provided
RadioslGalvanized PoleslPiers) $128,610.20
-Activation Equipment(2 Sites) $21.370.00
Total for Original Pricing Proposal $415,904.20
OPTIONS OFFERED:
Project Management Fee $11,000.00
Solar Panel Package Options $27,851.00
On-Site Maintenance Option $19,630.00
EIW Tools $5,000.00
Existing Siren Equipment Removal $24,100.00
OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL PRICING REQUESTED BY STAFF:
Price for Direct Bury Concrete Poles and Re-use of existing
poles that meet siren specifications $335,480.20
BONDING COST:
-Performance&Payment Bond: Included
DELIVERY/PAYMENT/LEAD TIME TERMS:
-Delivery:6-8 Weeks
-FOB: University Park, IL(Changed to FOB Grapevine through negoiation)
-Payment Terms: Equipment: Net 30 Days on shipment; (Changed to
upon receipt through negoiation)
-Services: Net 30 Days on completion billed monthly
GIFFORD ELECTRIC
RANKING SCORE: 167%
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL PRICING OFFERED:
-(1 3)New TI28 ACIDC Sirens(2)CSC960 Central
Controler(1)Software; Includes credit for City furnished
radios; (1 1) Remove old Sirens; (1 1)Credit for old Siren $316,370.00
OPTIONS OFFERED:
-Solar Panels per Siren $2,200.00/Ea
OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL PRICING REQUESTED BY STAFF:
-Price for Direct Bury Concrete Poles and Re-use of existing
poles that meet siren specifications $316,370.00
BONDING COST:
-Performance&Payment Bond 2.5%of total $7,909.25
DELIVERY/PAYMENT/LEAD TIME TERMS:
-Delivery and Payment Terms not listed in proposal.
Page 1
AMERICAN SIGNAL CORPORATION
RANKING SCORE: 161%
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL PRICING OFFERED:
-10 i-Force3200; iForce Horn 3200 Watt Speaker w/Omni-
directional Frame 24VDC, Inc.; 3200 Watt Control NEMA 4x,
&50'Cabel with Motorola Radios; includes upgrades to
existing equipment; Installation of(9)on existing poles and
(1)new pole; Freight cost included in offer $245,140.00
OPTIONS OFFERED:
-Central Station Controller $4,540.00
-Central Station Controller Kit $205.00
-CompuLert $2,785.00
-Install new command&control system $1,200.00
-Solar Panels $3,590.00/Ea.
OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL PRICING REQUESTED BY STAFF:
Total price using direct bury concrete poles $265,440.00
BONDING COST:
-Performance&Payment Bond No Charge
DELIVERY/PAYMENT/LEAD TIME TERMS:
-Payment Terms:25%due with order,65%due 30 days
upon shipment of equipment; Remainder due Net 30; Other
payment terms exist.
-Delivery: FOB Factory,Milwaukee,WI. Freight Cost included
in proposal
-Lead Time not stated in proposal.
AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS
RANKING SCORE: 156%
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL PRICING OFFERED:
-(11)4 Spker Rotate Vortex Series;Two-way Control(1)2-
way Encoder Equipment; (1 1) Installation of equipment;
11 (concrete poles,50'; (1 1) locks $197,669.47
OPTIONS OFFERED:
-Solar Panels $2,610.00
-Dedicated Receivers $1,227.60
-Intrusion Alarm $130.50
-Alternate Encoder E2010 $2,436.00
-Alternate Encoder E969 $1,000.50
-Computer Interface Module $850.00
-Hand Held Encoder $600.00
Backup Repeater $4,275.00
OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL PRICING REQUESTED BY STAFF:
-None
BONDING COST:
Not requested
DELIVERY/PAYMENT/LEAD TIME TERMS:
Delivery and Payment Terms not listed in proposal.
NOTES:
-Additional pricing was not requested from this vendor because their
original pricing offered was with concrete poles and not galvanized poles.
Page 2
ATI SYSTEMS
RANKING SCORE: 156%
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL PRICING OFFERED:
-New Galvanized Poles-Per Requested Specs-Existing Locations $350,516.00
-New Galvanized Poles-Utilizing Optimal Design $404,075.00
OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL PRICING REQUESTED BY STAFF:
-Utilizing Existing Locations&Poles-Per system specs requested $233,967.00
-Utilizing Existing Locations&Poles-Per system specs plus solar option $231,294.00
-Utilizing Optimal Design Locations&Existing Poles(2 New) $274,801.00
-Utilizing Optimal Design Locations&Existing Poles(2 New)Plus Solar Option $271,649.00
-Utilizing New Concrete Poles&Existing Locations-Per System Specs Requested $240,845.00
-Utilizing New Concrete Poles&Existing Locations-Per System Specs Requested plus Solar Option.. $262,295.00
-Utilizing New Concrete Poles-Using Optimal Location Design $280,975.00
-Utilizing New Concrete Poles-Using Optimal Location Design plus Solar Option $306,325.00
BONDING COST:
Performance&Payment Bond No Charge
DELIVERY/PAYMENT/LEAD TIME TERMS:
-Payment Terms: Net 30
-Delivery: Shipping to Dock location at City of Grapevine;
-Cost included in proposal
-Lead Time not stated in proposal.
NOTES:
-The original proposal for this vendor offered new galvanized poles for existing locations and for an
optimal design locations.The revised pricing offered configurations for using existing locations and
Poles and included solar options.
SAFETYCOM, INC.
RANKING SCORE: 147%
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL PRICING OFFERED:
-(17)VortexR4(129dB Rotating Siren); includes(2)Solar
Panels; Includes Concrete Poles $346,039.00
-(17)VortexR4(129dB Omni Directional Siren); includes(2)
Solar Panels; Includes Concrete Poles $428,397.00
ADDITIONAL PRICING REQUESTED:
-Additional pricing not requested. Original price included concrete poles.
BONDING COST:
-Not requested
DELIVERY/PAYMENT/LEAD TIME TERMS:
-Delivery: Shipping cost included in proposal
-Payment Terms: 10%down upon placement of order.
Lead Time not stated in proposal
NOTES:
This vendor quoted a rotating and omni directional system, both
with concrete poles
Page 3