Laserfiche WebLink
3 0 1 <br />REGULAR MEETING <br />JULY 30, 1984 <br />AWARD BID - COMPUTER EOUIPMENT FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND <br />In a letter to the Board, City Controller Michael L. Vance, <br />submitted the final report including an evaluation and recom- <br />mendation from Crowe Chizek and Company concerning the Office <br />Automation Project. The report included an evaluation of all <br />the data and pricing submitted as a result of bids taken by <br />the Board on February 27, 1984 plus the additional information <br />submitted .by each vendor on July 9, 1984 as a result of Addendum <br />No, l issued by the Board. After having reviewed the reports and <br />its exhibits, Mr. Vance indicated that he agrees with Crowe <br />Chizek's recommendation that the City consider the network micro <br />computer that offers the City the greatest amount of cost effec- <br />tiveness and compatibility with other equipment. Mr. Vance <br />indicated that he concurs with the recommendation of Crowe <br />Chizek.and Company and therefore recommends that the bids be <br />awarded to Computerland, 205 East McKinley, Mishawaka, Indiana. <br />Computerland, on the basis of present value cost and evaluation <br />points awarded for features, had the lowest cost effectiveness <br />ratio. While their present valuecostwas.somewhat higher than <br />the next lowest bidder, in terms of cost effectiveness ratio, <br />evaluation points awarded for system features anal:capabilities <br />to be compatible with _other hardware exceeded the next bidder. <br />In addition to recommending to, -the Board that an award be made <br />to Computerland, Mr. Vance also recommended that the City follow <br />through with the additional steps recommended by Crowe Chizek <br />& Company. Those steps are as follows: <br />1. Make arrangements with Computerland Representatives <br />to perform a functional demonstration of the system <br />for City personnel. <br />2. Review the Computerland Contract in detail in order <br />to determine whether there are any items from either <br />a data processing or legal stand point that should be <br />changed. In addition, it is recommended that a proper <br />and sound business relationship be.defined by contract <br />with Computerland. <br />3. Conduct detailed discussions with Computerland in <br />order to determine the following items associated <br />with conversion to the new system. <br />a. Suggested timing of implementation . <br />b. Requirements necessary for implementation <br />C. The establishment of a training schedule <br />d. The definition of exact physical facility <br />modifications needed <br />e. The negotiation of software and software <br />support cost if any <br />Mr. Steve Nagengast, from Crowe Chizek and Company was in <br />attendance at the meeting and addressed the Board concerning <br />this matter. Mr. Nagengast advised that of the bids reviewed, <br />the highest net present cost amount was $280,253.00, the lowest <br />being $130,283.00 with Computerland's estimated.five year total <br />net present value being $159,146.00 (second lowest). He stated <br />that in evaluating the bids the total cost of the system for a <br />five (5) year period of time was utilized. <br />To clarify the justification of not selecting the lowest bidder, <br />Mr. Nagengast advised that Crowe Chizek initially conducted <br />detailed surveys to determine the needs of the City offices as <br />well as the City's.priorities. After those surveys were con- <br />ducted and the needs identified, a specific set of specifications <br />were compiled that would request vendor ability to provide data <br />storage and retrieval, word processing, electronic spreadsheet, <br />electronic mail, graphics and project management. Additionally, <br />