HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 406-08TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REPORT TYPE:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
OCTOBER 20, 2008 CMR:406:08
CONSENT
14
SUBJECT:Approval of a Purchase Order with Golden State Fire Apparatus in an
Amount Not to Exceed $3,295,765 for the Purchase of Six Type I Fire
Engines
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a purchase order v~ith
Golden State Fire Apparatus, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $3,243,585 for the purchase
of six Type I Fire Engines; and
°Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the purchase order with Golden State Fire Apparatus, Inc. for related, additional
but unforeseen costs which may develop such as new technologies that may have been
developed since the specifications were written or new mandates that may be imposed,
the total value of which shall not exceed $52,180. ~
BACKGROUND
Under the vehicle replacement policy, Policy and Procedures 04-01, on-going replacement of
City fleet vehicles and equipment occurs using guidelines based on age, mileage accumulation,
and obsolescence. The City’s fleet of emergency vehicles currently includes eight fire engines.
Fire engines are typically replaced after 15 years, after which they spend five years in reserve
status to supplement the fleet during times when an engine is in need of repair or in the event of a
major fire event. Four of the City’s fire engines, three 1987 models and one 1989 model exceed
the recommended standard 20 year replacement and are at the end of their useful lives. Three of
these four engines are currently in front-line (not reserve) status. In addition, the fleet has two
1999 model fire engines with an "experimental" design that need to be replaced. Under the
vehicle replacement policy, the two 1999 model fire engines are scheduled to be replaced in
2014; however, they no !onger meet the operational needs of the department. The 1999 model
engines were designed to include patient transport and basic life support (BLS) capabilities.
Facilitating these capabilities re@red design changes that compromised the flexibility and
ergonomic safety of the engines. For example, the 1999 engines will only fit in four of the seven
fire stations where Type I engines are normally housed. The ergonomic issues (cab and body
step height and placement, hose bed height, etc.) have led to several lost-time injuries to
firefighters. In addition to the storage and ergonomic issues, the engine’s fire pumps and
pressure relief valves have not adapted well to the pressure and flow characteristics of the water
CMR:406:08 Page 1 of 6
supply system in our area. The work required to resolve these issues would be extensive,
involving the complete replacement of the fire pump system on each pumper, as well as
significant modifications to the cab and hose body. The. cost to make these modifications is
estimated at more than $100,000 per engine. Even if these modifications were successful, the
storage issue would remain since the overall dimensions of the engines cannot be reduced. One
of the 1999 model engines has been removed from service due to performance and safety issues
that occurred during pumping operations. A great deal of staff time has been expended in an
effort to resolve the pumping performance issue, but the problems ultimately could not be
resolved. Due to the irresolvable safety, ergonomic and storage issues related to the two 1999
model engines, staff recommends replacing these vehicles early. Staff has thoroughly reviewed
the design of the new fire engines, has ensured that the fire pump systems will adapt to the
characteristics of the City’s water supply, and has confirmed that the overall dimensions of each
engine will not create storage issues at the fire stations.
Purchasing six identical fire engines has numerous operational advantages. A fleet of uniform
fire engines allows fire fighters and mechanics to achieve a greater degree of operational and
mechanical knowledge about the apparatus and realize an increased conformity of the entire fleet
as they relate to governmental regulations and standards. In addition, the number of training
hours required for driving, pumping and equipment operations certifications would be reduced.
Also, operational efficiency in the field responding to and operating at emergency incidents
would be gained with uniform engines. Having a uniform fire engine fleet with the same size,
shape, weight and operational characteristics may reduce the potential for driving accidents and
personal injuries.
DISCUSSION
A Request for Proposals (RFP) for six Type I fire engines was sent to 11 potential proposers on
May 20, 2008 as well as advertised. Furthermore, a solicitation meeting was held with all
prospective proposers on June 5, 2008 to review the RFP and answer clarification questions. As
a result of these efforts, proposals were received from two Fire Apparatus Companies, Golden
State Fire Apparatus, Inc. (Golden State) and KME Fire Apparatus (KME), on July 1, 2008. The
proposals were reviewed by a Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) composed of staff from
the Fire Department and Equipment Management Division of Public Works. This group was
established to make an overall determination on the technical merits of each proposal and
acceptability to the City’s needs. Accordingly, the proposals were evaluated based on the criteria
set forth in the RFP. Pricing information was submitted separately, and was not available to the
TEC until after the technical/qualification review process was completed. This was purposely
done so as not to influence the technical evaluation. The top rated proposal (highest qualitative
point total) was from Golden State Fire Apparatus, Inc., representing Pierce Manufacturing,
Incorporated, who received a total qualitative point score of 95 out of 100 total points possible.
The price of their proposal for six Type I Fire Engines was in the amount of $3,295,765
including $33,116 to equip the six engines. The other proposal received was from KME Fire
Apparatus whose qualitative score was 30 total points out of 100 possible. Their cost proposal
was in the amount of $2,958,366.
SolMtation and Selection Process
As previously noted through the soIicitation process, two proposals were received on July 1,
2008 from KME and Golden State (Attachment A). The evaluation process was divided into two
Parts titled Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 was a qualitative/qualifications review that the members of
CMR:406:08 Page 2 of 6 .
the TEC completed for each proposal. This process included the review of the proposalS
received and compared them to the specifications set forth in RFP No. 121410. In accordance
with the solicitation, the criteria used by the committee for the technical/qualifications evaluation
of proposals are as follows: -
1.Compliance to Specifications;
2.Design, Reliability and Safety Orders;
3.Availability of parts and maintenance;
4.References; and
5.Warranty.
Each criteria was weighted with a maximum of four points for each evaluator (or maximum total
of 20 in the aggregate for the entire TEC). The committee assigned the vendors an overall rank
and rating on each individual evaluation criteria. The rating scale consisted of Exceptional-4
points, Acceptable-3 points, Marginal-2 points or Unacceptable-1 point (see table below).
EXCEPTIONAL 4
ACCEPTABLE 3
MARGINAL 2
UNACCEPTABLE 1
Five committee members completed an independent evaluation of each proposal. After the
individual evaluations were completed, the committee met to compile the individual evaluations
into a summary evaluation. The summary evaluation results are shown in the following table:
Evaluation Factor KME Golden State
Compliance to Specifications Unacceptable ~Acceptable
Design, Reliability and Safety Marginal Exceptional
Factors
Availability of Parts and Unacceptable Exceptional
Maintenance
References Unacceptable Exceptional
Warranty Unacceptable Exceptional
Cost $2,958,366 $3,295,765
As a result of the in-depth evaluation, the committe~ determined that Golden State provided the
best overall technical proposal that met the specifications of the City and therefore should be
awarded the contract. This is based on the fact that Golden State was Exceptional or Acceptable
in every evaluation factor scoring an aggregate 95 total points out of 100 maximum. KME rated
marginal on only 5 factor ratings by the team and unacceptable in 19 factor ratings scoring only
30 points out of a maximum total of 100.
As previously indicated there were two parts to the RFP Evaluation Process. Part 1 was a
qualitative based evaluation by the five member TEC. The following table shows the aggregate
point total assigned to each criteria for KME and Golden State.
CMR:406:08 Page 3 of 6
specifications. This
includes ability to
execute a contract
without delay. Ability to
meet 2003 vehicle code
35002 and 2007
emission standards is
required.
2. Design, reliability
and safety factors
3. Availability of
p arts/maintenance
4. References. This
includes character of
dealer and manufacturer
5. Warranty
Compliance with (20 points possible) 5
(20 points possible)
(20 points possible)
(20 points possible)
9
5
6
5
16
19
20
20
(20 points possible)2O
Furthermore, Part 2 of the evaluation process was assessment of Total Cost of each proposal
submitted. The total maximum point value assigned to Cost was 50 points. This then made the
total maximum points for the evaluation process 150 (Part 1 Qualitative Factors-100 points and
Part 2 Cost- 50 points).
Please note, for this solicitation, the cost evaluation was eliminated because KME was not
considered to have provided a proposal that was in the competitive range based on the qualitative
evaluation (30 versus 95 for Golden State) that occurred in Phase 1.
Additionally, if KME had provided a proposal that could have been considered competitive; both
companies would have been assigned the total maximum points of 50 ($2,958,366/$2,958,366 x
50) for Cost due to the fact that they provided the lower cost proposal of the two received.
However, due to the point allocation system used for this solicitation, Golden State would have
received 44.88 points ($2,958,366/$3,295,765 x 50) for Cost. Even if cost had been evaluated,
Golden State would have still received the greater maximum points of the two proposals 139.88
(Partl-95 plus Part 2 44.88) to 80 (Part 1-30 p!us Part 2-50) for KME.
The following tables reflect the individual evaluators rating:
Golden State Evaluation Summary:
Golden
State Fire
Apparatus,
Inc.
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
CMR:406:08 Page 4 of 6
3
3
Total Points: :16
4
4
3
19
KME Evaluation Summary
KME Fire F
Apparatus. ~I!.S;C
1
1
1
t
1
TotalPoints :5 ~
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RESOURCE IMPACT "
A total of $2.4 million has been allocated for the purchase of six Type I Fire Engines within the
Vehicle Replacement Fund (VRF). This amount is comprised of $1.2 million from Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) project VR-07800 and $1.2 million from CIP project VR-08000. In
addition, Stanford will reimburse the City for 25% of the cost or $823,941. With the current CIP
appropriation of $2.4 million and the Stanford reimbursement of $823,941 (totaling $3,223,941),
the VRF will have to fund an additional $71,824. Even though there is not sufficient funding for
the purchase in the current fiscal year budget, it will take a year to deliver the six fire engines and
make the final payment. Therefore, staff recommends awarding the contract over this fiscal year
and the next. ~
Staff explored purdhasing a lesser number of fire engines but determined that to provide
adequate response to emergencies and meet compulsory mutual aid this was not a viable
solution. On at least two occasions, the Fire Department had to turn down requests to supply a
mutual aid engine for a strike team deployment during the wildfires in June and July of 2008.
This was due to not having a reserve engine available. The frequency of breakdowns and repairs
is increasing and there have been times when the City has had to use Type III engines, designed
to fight wildfires not structural fires, to serve as back ups to Type I engines. This results in a
decreased level of service to the community. Staff also reviewed the specifications to determine
if there was opportunity to reduce the cost and concluded that the cost could not be reduced
without compromising the utility and safety of the fire engines. Staff also investigated the trade-
in or resale value of the existing engines and concluded that the older engines do not have either
and the 1999 engines may have a minimal resale value. Typically, obsolete fire engines are
either scrapped or donated.
Golden State’s payment requirement is full payment at time of delivery; however, they offer a
discount of $8,697 per unit for a Chassis Prepayment. A Chassis Prepayment is a payment equal
to the chassis cost of $269,120 per unit, or $1,614,720 for six units, and is due approximately 90
calendar days prior to apparatus completion. Staff recommends making the Chassis Prepayment,
which would be due in the current fiscal year, and realize savings in the mount of $52,180. This
CMR:406:08 Page 5 of 6
would be utilized for the change order authority. The final payment, less the discount, would be
payable next fiscal year after delivery in Summer 2009. Acceptance is to occur within 10
working days from delivery of last unit to the City. Payment by City will be made within 30
days of final acceptance of the last unit.
Staff will monitor funding options to ensure the CIP budget has adequate funds to pay the
purchase order. Any funding recommendations that cannot be met with existing revenues within
the fund will be brought .to Council well in advance of the final payment.
Future Issues and Discussion
Over the past few years the VRF balance has declined due to: increased fuel and metal prices;
reduced annual allocations to the General Fund as a result of its fiscal challenges; additional
expenses incurred as a result of extending vehicle life use expectancies; and emergency
replacement of other vehicles and equipment. Public Works and Administrative Services staff is
currently working on a plan to replenish the VRF and on establishing guidelines to maintain a
reasonable balance going forward. For the 2009-10 fiscal year, staff will: reprioritize the
replacement schedule; adjust the VRF allocation to City funds to reflect and offset actual costs of
replacement; and examine a potential financing plan if there is a need to supplement the VRF’s
liquidity needs. Staff will return to Finance Committee and then Council with this plan in the
upcoming budget process.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Authorization of the contract does not represent any change to the existing policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is not a project as defined in Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Bid Summary
Attachment B: Certification of Nondiscrimination
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
KEITH LAHAIE
Fleet Manager
.../
~LENN S. ROBERTS
D~of Administrative
J..AIV~_.;J~EENE
City~anager
CMR:406:08 Page 6 of 6
{
ATTACHMENT B
Certification of Nondiscrimination
As suppliers of goods or services to the City of Palo Alto, the firm and individuals listed below
certify that they do not discriminate in employment of any person because of race, skin color,
gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person; that they are in compliance with all
Federal, State and local directives and executive orders regarding nondiscrimination in
employment.
1,If Proposer is INDIVIDUALISole Proprietorship, sign here:
Date: June 3~ 2008
Proposer’s Signature
Proposer’s typed name and title
If Proposer is PARTNERSHIP or JOINT VENTURE, at least (2) Partners or each of
the Joint Venturers shall sign here:
Partnership or Joint Venture Name (type or print)
Date:
Member of the Partnership or Joint Venture signature
Member of the Partnership or Joint Venture signalure
Date:
If Proposer is a CORPORATION, the duly authorized officer(s) shall sign as follows:
The undersigned certify that they are respectively:
Vice President of National ,~al~,~and DJr~rtnr n~ ~,nn~r~r~ 1~
Title Title ~
Of the corporation named below; that they are designated to sign the Proposal Cost Form by
resolution (attach a certified copy, with corporate seal, if applicable, notarized as to its
authenticity or Secretary’s certificate of authorization) for and on behalf of the below named
CORPORATION, and that they are authorized to execute same for and on behalf of said
CORPORATION.
Pierce Man tur~ng, ~
Corpor~l"
~’t)~"
Title: a of National
Date: June 3, 2008
Date: June 3, 2008
Title: Director of :ract Maria ement:
City of Palo Alto - RFP121410
ATTACHMENT A
,_C~ ~0 0