Laserfiche WebLink
371 <br />SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1977 <br />There was a detailed discussion ;of the specifications and the <br />equipment bid, based on price and anticipated performance of <br />the equipment as described in the brochures submitted. It was <br />determined that the equipment bid by Femco, Inc. for Item A <br />was not as specified. Mr. Nicholos said he bid the piece of <br />equipment he felt was similar to the specifications but was more <br />economical and, in his opinion, would do a better job. Mr. Katz <br />said it should be noted that Kay Equipment bid the equipment <br />requested in the specifications. Mr. Mullen reviewed the specifications <br />and said the base bid of Femco, Inc. did not meet specifications in <br />that a battery -operated, self-propelled sweeper was specified. Mr. <br />Nicholos agreed but said that he did not feel this type of equipment <br />was needed for the work to be done. The Board then discussed the <br />specifications and the projected use of the equipment. Consideration <br />was given to re -advertising for bids and Mr. McMahon asked Mr. Hedman <br />whether a decision to re -bid would cause a problem. Mr. Hedman <br />said, because of the time schedule involved, rebidding would cause a <br />real problem. Mr. Katz said he wanted to note that the Kay Equipment <br />bid was within specifications, both as to equipment and the interest. <br />Mr. McMahon asked both representatives about delivery_ and both <br />indicated that delivery could be made within the two weeks specified <br />and, in fact, most of the equipment was already in stock. <br />The Board then reviewed each item in the bid, comparing it with the <br />specifications and the manufacturer's brochures listing product <br />information to determine the performance which could be expected. <br />It was agreed that the Femco bid was not within specifications for <br />Item A and Item B. Mr. Mullen said the Board understood that Femco <br />bid the equipment it felt would give the City the best product for <br />the job but said the Board is bound by the specifications. <br />The Board then computed the low bid within specifications, accessories, <br />in.teregt <br />rate and the monthly payment, <br />with the following <br />results: <br />Item <br />A <br />Kay Equipment, Alternate Bid <br />$1445.00 <br />No Accessories <br />Item <br />B <br />Kay Equipment, Alternate Bid <br />1348.00 <br />No Accessories <br />Item <br />C <br />Kay Equipment, Alternate Bid <br />228.00 <br />No Accessories <br />Item <br />D <br />Femco, Inc., Base Bid <br />520.00 <br />No Accessories <br />Item <br />E <br />Femco, Inc., Base Bid <br />140.00 <br />$19.50 Accessories <br />Item <br />F <br />Kay Equipment, Alternate Bid <br />846.00 <br />No Accessories <br />Item <br />G <br />Femco, Inc., Base Bid <br />500.00 <br />$100.00 Accessories <br />Item <br />H <br />Femco, Inc., Base Bid <br />880.00 <br />$186.00 Accessories <br />Item <br />I <br />Femco, Inc., Base Bid <br />3150.00 <br />No Accessories <br />Mr. McMahon made a motion that the Board award the bids as outlined <br />above to Femco, Inc. in the total amount of $5,495.50, with a monthly <br />payment of $182.53 and to Kay Equipment & Supply Company in the total <br />amount of $3,867.00, with a monthly payment of $120.29. Mr. Mullen <br />seconded the motion and it carried. <br />Both Mr. Nicholos and Mr. Katz indicated they were satisfied with <br />the review of the bids and felt the action of the Board in making <br />the award was fair. <br />There being no further business to come before the special meeting, <br />upon motion made by Mr. McMahon, seconded by Mr. Mullen and carried, <br />the meeting adjourned at 12:45 p� , <br />� � r <br />ric N cMah n <br />ATTEST: et u len <br />Gz.� Gcs�x <br />Patricia DeClercq, Cler <br />