Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 06 - Motor GraderirEM s MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL -FROM: ROGER NELSON, CITY MANAGER Do MEETING DATE: JUNE 5, 2001 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF BID 94-2001 MOTOR GRADER RECOMMENDATION: City Council to consider approval of an award to Darr Equipment for the purchase of a motor grader in the total amount of $42,404.00. A bid tabulation is attached for review. FUNDING SOURCE: Funding for this purchase is currently available in account: 325-48910-000-0-004 Lease Fund/Motor Vehicles — CO's 2000A........$42,404.00 BACKGROUND: Bids were taken in accordance with Local Government Code, Section 252.021. Notice of the bid was published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram and the Grapevine Sun on April 26, 2001 and May 3, 2001. This equipment purchase for the Street Division is to replace an older similar piece of equipment, which has been scheduled for several years. This new piece of equipment is replacing a three-year old model. The replacement criterion of three years was established in 1998 under the vehicle buy-back program. Three responses to the bid were received on May 11, 2001. The responses to the bid were received from RDO Equipment, Romco Equipment and Darr Equipment. However, two of the three responses, RDO Equipment and Romco Equipment did not meet the minimum requirements of the bid specification. The bid requested both a trade-in allowance for the current model and a guaranteed three-year re -purchase allowance. Specifically, RDO Equipment did not provide a guaranteed repurchase price. The Romco bid is also deficient in meeting the minimum specifications of the bid. The deficiencies of the Romco bid were in the areas of engine size, power train and front wheel turning radius. May 31, 2001 (11:03AM) Due to RDO Equipment's and Romco's bid not meeting the required specifications, it is recommended that Council award the contract for the purchase of a Motor Grader to Darr Equipment. Darr Equipment submitted two separate pieces of equipment in response to the bid. Both responses met the minimum specifications of the bid. Based upon a review by staff, it is recommended that the alternate piece of equipment be selected. This is based upon a better re -purchase allowance at the end of the three-year period. Staff recommends approval. 9 NO N May 31, 2001 (11:03AM) O O N R5, '2000 o o a C) a p C) p0000 0) U') LO 511. C) . , rl.� cl� ll:fi LC) Ce) Co 69, C%j 0 C14 et — 64 ie ti 0 C) C) C) 0 o c 00000 R q q q 0 LO 0 0 U) 0 C) to LO U) 6-.� 0 Co U') gs! oc� lqi 't 0 v co fl- 0) (3i- 06 o m C) N60, C) E i c 64 69 If 14; ol z o o a C) a p C) p0000 -C! 511. C) . , O C14 et — jc 6,v Cl) Cl) 04 ti ro 00 L) 0 0 0 E E E 0 0 0 cc w ry C: 0 (n C: E E I mi E E c, I m mm cr a 0L .5 ui 53 'S cr 0 E co a" Cr Z� 0 uj .1 u LU LU < co m E 0 0 0 co co 0 am 0 Er N cn v