Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.7 Award Police Vehicle Bid CITY OF DUBLIN S5-0--2-6 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 14 , 1991 SUBJECT Award of Police Vehicle Bid (Prepared by James W. Rose, Captain) EXHIBITS ATTACHED A) Bid Submitted by Hertz Car Sales B) Bid Submitted by Shamrock Ford C) Report Submitted by Phil Molina, Finance Director RECOMMENDATIONS Award Bid to Hertz Car Sales and authorize Staff to issue a purchase order based on the bid. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Total Cost of Vehicle - $12 ,735.94 . Sufficient funds are included in the 1990-91 Budget DESCRIPTION The City Council approved the addition of a Police Captain position and an unmarked police vehicle in the 1990-91 budget. Pursuant to an alternative interpretation of the City's Purchasing Ordinance bid procedures as provided by the Finance Director, Staff prepared bid specifications for the purchase of a used 1990 vehicle and submitted them to the City Manager for approval . The bid specifications requested price quotations on a used 1990 mid-size vehicle with a maximum of 20 ,000 miles on the odometer, having a minimum engine size of 6 cylinders with a displacement of no less than 3 . 8 liters, fuel injected, and having all standard, factory installed equipment and options as specified in the bid specifications for the vehicle. The bid specifications were sent to five (5) car sales dealerships (Hertz , Avis, National, Shamrock Ford and Crown Chevrolet) . Each dealership was contacted and indicated they would be interested in bidding. Consistent with the adopted Purchasing Ordinance, the sealed bids were opened on Friday, December 21, 1990 . The vehicles described in the two received bids are similar in nature and comply with the bid specifications. The following breakdown compares the purchase price of the individual vehicles as submitted by the respective companies. 1) Hertz Corporation 1990 Ford Thunderbird Base Price: $11,875. 00 Delivery/Tax/Prep. 860.94 NET COST $12 ,735.94 NOTE: This includes the remainder of the manufacturers 6 year/60, 000 mile limited power train warranty. 2) Shamrock Ford 1990 Ford Thunderbird Base Price: $13 ,000. 00 Delivery/Tax/Prep. 942 .50 NET COST $13 ,942 . 50 NOTE: This includes the remainder of the manufacturers 6 year/60,000 mile limited power train warranty. Based on the total purchase cost, taking into account the warranty, Staff recommends the City Council accept the bid submitted by Hertz Corporation of Millbrae. Delivery is anticipated by January 28 , 1991 . --------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: L ITEM NO. EXHIBIT A CITY OF DUBLIN BID PROPOSAL FORM I Have received the documents titled, "City of Dublin Bid Specifications" and "Instructions to Bidders" , and I have satisfied myself as to the scope of the requested purchase and the conditions required. In submitting this proposal, I agree: 1 . To hold my bid open for final approval by the City Council , but not to exceed 30 days from the date of' this proposal. 2 . To comply with the provisions of the Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, and Bid Specifications. 3 . To enter into a contract based upon a purchase order reflecting the terms found in the specifications, if awarded on the basis of this proposal. My proposal: 1 . VEHICLE DESCRIPTION (Genera ) with Make, Model and Year �a�.� F��17 TND ��QD 2 . TYPE OF WARRANTY PROVIDED. ( A-r— 61 MN\30FikcEZS C EAP. 3 . DELIVERY SCHEDULE: The delivery shall be completed within � � days following the formal award of bid. 4 . COSTS: I. Price of vehicle: $ 7A,X AT Cost of delivery charges, taxes: $ All other fees and applicable charges (attach detailed itemized 1>L�S� list of costs) : $ ©) � y Name of the FIRM submitting BID: Tel= V�T� COf� j 1 p� Signature of Authorized FIRM representative: Date: YAC) Title: 'Pt-6C--T SAL-C--S Business Address: 3010 C- ,-(MW1FSiZA& at1 E NOTE: Any substitutions to or exclusions from the specifications listed in the bidding sheet must be fully explained and reasons given why the required item is being substituted or excluded. r CITY OF DUBLIN BID PROPOSAL FORM EXHIBIT B I have received the documents titled, "City of Dublin Bid Specifications" and "Instructions to Bidders" , and I have satisfied myself as to the scope of the requested purchase and the conditions required. In submitting this proposal , I agree: 1 . To hold my bid open for final approval by the City . Council, but not to exceed 30 days from the date of this proposal. 2. To comply with the provisions of the Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, and Bid Specifications. 3 . To enter into a contract based upon a purchase order reflecting the terms found in the specifications, if awarded on the basis of this proposal. My proposal : 1. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION (General) with Make, Model and Year 1990 Ford Thunderbird Coupe 2 . TYPE OF WARRANTY PROVIDED. Balance of Factory Powertrain Warranty 6 year or 60,000 mile 3 . DELIVERY SCHEDULE: The delivery shall be completed within 5 days following the formal award of bid. 4 . COSTS: I . Price of vehicle: $ 13,000.00 Cost of delivery charges, taxes: $ 942.50 All other fees and applicable Exempt t charges (attach detailed itemized p list of costs) : $ ($258.00 if no exempt) Name of the FIRM submitting BID: Shamrock Ford IlP Signature of Authorized FIRM representative: Date• 12/20/90 Title• Fleet eet Sa] s Manager CK FORD Business Address: 7499 Dublin Blvd ,it �i f Y 7499 DUBLIN BLVD. Dablin, CA. c)45687- A Liu , CA 94568 l ' NOTE: Any substitutions to or exclusions from the specifications listed in the bidding sheet must be fully explained and reasons given why the required item is being substituted or excluded. January 9, 199.1 EXHIBIT C TO: City Manager FROM: Phillip S. Molin_� SUBJECT: Update to previous memo re: Process for purchasing police under-cover-vehicles from Leasing car companies, dated August 2, 1990. At a City Council meeting last fiscal year, the City Council asked that the City Staff review the purchasing ordinance. The request focused on the bid for an undercover-police-vehicle. Because these vehicles may be purchased from time-to-time through a Leasing Company such as Avis, the Council was concerned that the delay between the time when staff agrees on which vehicle to buy to the point when the Council has an opportunity to approve the staff request, could result in a lost opportunity to purchase the vehicle. This might happen, for example, in the situation where staff agrees to buy vehicle 'A' from Avis on the first of the month, but cannot commit to the purchase because Council cannot approve the purchase until the second Monday of the month (the regularly scheduled Council meeting date). If in-between these two dates Avis receives another bid on the same vehicle backed by a company purchase order, Avis is likely to sell it. to the other bidder. There are four alternatives available to solving this problem: 1. Change the purchasing Ordinance #16-83 to reflect that the City wishes to set its bidding requirement at the same limits listed in the State's Public Contract Code section 20162. That Section states simply that public projects exceeding $5,000 shall be awarded through the bid process. JPublic projects means erection, improvements, painting, or repair of public buildings and public works]. Because the acquisition of an undercover police vehicle is not a public works project the State Codes regarding bidding limits do not cover this situation. If this change in the City ordinance is adopted, it would make the bidding process for the acquisition of the police vehicles exempt from both State Code and City Ordinance. 2. Change the purchasing ordinance to provide for an exception to the $5,000 bid limit for the acquisition of police under cover vehicles and associated equipment only. The concern with this solution is that it can set a precedence for the method of handling future problems with the City's purchasing ordinance. For example, the ordinance could be changed each time a department head identifies a particular problem with the purchasing ordinance, resulting in a fragmented ordinance with more exceptions-to-the-rules than rules. 3. The next choice is to change the purchasing ordinance to provide that the City Manager is authorized to approve purchases of all budgeted items up to say, $25,000 and further provide that the City Council approve all other purchases. This would give the City Manager more authority in the area of January 9, 1991 EXHIBIT C equipment acquisition. It would also minimize the time delay currently found in both preparing agenda statements and making Council presentations for items already included and approved in the budget . 4. The fourth alternative is to simply avoid adding to the current purchase ordinance any bureaucratic delays by paraphrasing the language in the ordinance. This can be done by noting that the current purchase ordinance does not require that the bid document be approved by the Council . It also does not require that the Council authorize the issuance of the bid documents to responsible bidders. The ordinance only requires Council approval of the actual purchase. This alternative can be formalized, therefore, by providing an administrative directive regarding the acquisition of items exceeding $5,000. The directive could, for example, include the following verbiage: When purchase requests for services and/or products exceed $5,000, the bid process identified in City Ordinance 16-83 must be followed. If the service and/or product has already been identified and approved within the City's CIP and/or operating budget, the Department head may prepare the RFB/RFP for the requested item without first obtaining Council's approval . Furthermore, the RFB/RFP may in those circumstances be mailed to prospective responsible bidders, and a purchase recommendation made directly to the City Manager. An agenda item will then be prepared recommending the acquisition of the product and/or service for Council approval . Taking this a step further, the City Manager could direct staff to issue a City purchase order consistent with the staff recommendation and before Council 's approval stating that: This is a tentative purchase order subject only to alteration by the City council . And this purchase order is tentative until the date of: (date of the next Council meeting), after which time, and if the City Council approves the staff recommendation, this purchase order becomes final . Under alternative #4, the tentative purchase order should not be provided if the City Manager is only minimally sure that Council will agree with the staff recommendation. But in those cases where the City Manager determines from both past requests, and the context of the current specific request, that it is very likely that the Council will agree with the purchase recommendation(s), the Manager could use his authority to authorize the issuance of the tentative purchase order. The methods list above are not mutually exclusive, and a number of combinations of alternatives are possible. I offered these alternatives because they represented the range of choices available. page 2 January 9, 1991 EXHIBIT C After our discussion on this matter, you chose to use the method identified as Alternative #4. The Police Chief has been appraised of your decision. This will reduce by two thirds the amount of processing previously necessary to purchase the undercover vehicle by eliminating the need to get Council 's approval to go to bid, to subsequently obtain Council 's approval of the bid documents, and conclude with Council 's approval of the purchase recommendation. Now, only approval of the item recommended to be purchased needs Council action. page 3