07/24/06 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

,.; ~. `<y J P.ECONVENED REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 2006 After reviewing the bids and examining the equipment, the Fire Department found shortcomings to various degrees in all bids. Some. of these exceptions were noted by the vendor, some were not. At the Public Works Agenda Session, it was decided that all bidders would be given an opportunity to explain the discrepancies and indicate if they could correct them. A written reply had to be received by fax or personal delivery at the Board of Public Works by 9:00 a.m. July 24, 2006. Six of the companies replied in a timely manner. One did not. The notice specifically indicated that failure to respond on time would result in disqualification as non-responsive. The company which filed the tardy response, Argus Supply Company, had one of the longest lists of exceptions. Because its original subhiittal could be rejected as non-responsive, because the notice clearly stated that an untimely response would be rejected as non-responsive and because they were the lone tardy bidder, their bid may be rejected as non-responsive. Five Alarm Fire and Safety had a deceptively short number of exceptions on the original list. Without going into detail, it involved the three major safety components. The specification required 7.5 ounces of protection per square yard in the outer shell. Five Alarm, in its response, said that it could only provide 7.25 ounces per square yard. Considering the City of South Bend is purchasing protective gear, the failure to conform to the specifications in the safety aspect is a critical one and renders the bid non- responsive. Fire Service, Inc., noted on its original bid that the warranty against defects was, contrary to the specifications, for one (1) year only. The company stood by its position when it replied Monday morning. We expect to be able to get five to eight years of rise out of the clothing. All other companies were able to give us that warranty. The faihu•e of Fire Service, Inc., to comply with the warranty requirement constitutes a material variation and. is grounds for rejection as non-responsive. polton Fire Equipment Sales, Inc., presented a knee pad that did not comply. This was called to their attention in the exceptions. As the firefighters are occasionally required to ' crawl along the ground to stay under the smoke because of confined space, the knee padding is an important part of the turnout gear, not just for show. The Monday morning fax from them did not address this issue. In addition, Dolton indicated that they could not comply with our requirement of delivery within sixty (60) days from notification of selection for bid. This could put the Federal Grant at risk. No other company indicated such a problem. Failure to address the knee pad deficiency which was specifically called to its attention and the inability to promise the delivery of goods in a timely manner renders the Dolton Fire Equipment Sales, Inc., bid non-responsive. Hoosier Fire Equipment, inc., indicated that there were ten (10) items in which they could not conform to the specifications. The cumulative effect of these acknowledged failures renders them non-responsive. `t'otal Fire Group ($1462:88 per set) did not have any variations from our specifications. h;nvironmental Safety Group, Inc., which bid $1282.40 per set, is apparently the lowest of the two (2) remaining bidders. However, while every other bidder made a good faith attempt at meeting our specifications and preparing a physical package which matched their specifications, it is not clear that this was done by this company. While they did not dote it, the outer shell that was sent was only 7 ounces per square yard, not 7.5. There were significant discrepancies in other safety items that became apparent when they were examined, but which the company did not independently acknowledge. They simply ' responded that it could meet our'specifications. Airy remaining discrepancies in what was physically produced by the remaining two (2) companies, while not meeting our specs, did not involve safety items and are not material. There is a time element involved. A federal .grant with deadlines is involved. A final decision must be made no later than the Board's next scheduled meeting, August 7, 2006. To be sure that the material does meet our specifications in every way, there is a need to