12/19/94 Board of Public Works Minutes

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

(l C0 f 19 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19, 1994 4. Shearer Communications was lower in pricing than ERS. Therefore it is recommended that the acceptance of Shearer Communications bid be accomplished. D & L Communications Although the lowest bid, not all of the equipment bid totally met all the published specifications. There are specifications that were not met for the following bid items: Repeater, both transmitter and receiver Voting system Satellite receivers We requested full equipment specifications in order to compare published specifications of the bid against the bid equipment. We have requested D&L to compare their equipment specifications against the bid specifications and provide, line for line, confirmation of each specification. All information received has been used for this discussion and evaluation. May it be noted that not all equipment specifications requested were available. Equipment'Specification Sheets' received have had conflicting statements when excerpts from the actual technical manual for the equipment were compared. On the specification page in the technical manual provided, it states to refer to the appropriate 'Specification Sheet' for complete specifications. In view of this, we have used the Specification Sheets only when information was not available in the equipment specifications from the actual technical manual for the equipment. The following items are of specific and serious concern: It is noted that 2 of the 4 main modules in the repeaters are not repairable by us nor D&L, and therefore are required to be sent to the manufacturer for repairs and/or replacement. A fifth module, the System Module which controls all functions of the repeater, is not repairable and must be replaced if it fails. This information was provided by D&L. This means that, although we are a self - maintained user, we will have to rely on the manufacturer to accomplish all repairs on these modules for the life of the equipment. The model of receiver bid for the satellite receivers is to be discontinued, most likely, in the first quarter of 1995. This information was provided on 12 December by Pete Lascell, technical specialist, of EGE. Additionally, Betty Wheeler, in the office of the Product Manager for EGE, advised the replacement equipment is available and has a 4 to 6 week delivery time. Thus, we would be purchasing equipment already out of manufacture at the time of delivery. Additionally, most manufacturers of this type of equipment only maintain replacement parts for discontinued products for a period of approximately 7 years. Our experience with this equipment manufacturer, on replacement parts for discontinued products, has shown a trend for increased prices (upwards of 150% or more) to waits in excess of 3 months if the part or parts is still listed as available. The voting comparator receiver card in this system is of the same design as of our present 22 year old system, although the actual components have been updated. The power supply module is identical to our present system power supply. The specified power output of the repeater with in - cabinet duplexer is necessary to meet licensed effective radiated power ensuring adequate rf penetration into buildings and structures. Unit bid would provide approximately 83% of specification. The specifications for spurious emissions and rejections, EIA selectivity, and EIA desensitivity is to ensure the minimum amount of interference to and from the repeater and loss of receiver sensitivity. The specifications for voter timing is to ensure the fastest available activation of the voter to ensure any transmitted unit identification data is not clipped and/or lost. To a-&w that proper voting occurs between the co -located and remote receivers, a voice frequency filter may