Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - NEW UHF RADIO SYSTEMS (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval-� Item to be presenteft CONSENT CALENDAR Lunn M. Harris DATE: November 12, 1991 SUBJECT: NEW UHF RADIO SYSTEM (PROJECT NO. CD 91-001) - BID AWARD DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On August 27, 1991, Council authorized the advertising for a two-way radio communications .system. On Tuesday, October 15, 1991, the following bids were received by the City Clerk. Budget in the amount of $200,000 has been allocated in the City's FY 91-92 budget for this work. COMPANY BID AMOUNT 1. Buddy Corporation $143,823.00 2. LA County - Radio Systems Division 156,297.10 3. Motorola Communications and Electronics 179,834.16 4. General Electric Corporation 182,080.46 5. Telecomm West 200,099.95 The proposal by Buddy Corporation, the apparent low bidder, was determined by staff to contain a number of irregularities_ (see attached evaluation). These irregularities result in the City's inability to determine exactly what Buddy Corporation is proposing to provide. For example, complete model numbers for equipment were not provided; no mention of maintenance, repair, and replacement parts policies were made; and Buddy Corporation did not satisfactorily document radio coverage capabilities. Due to . the number and nature of these irregularities, staff recommends that Council reject the Buddy Corporation bid as non-responsive. Dr.. Henry Richter, the City's radio consultant, has performed an independent analysis and concurs with this recommendation. The apparent second low bidder, LA County - Radio Systems Division, was determined to be in full compliance with bid requirements, with one minor irregularity. Dr. Richter recommends, and staff concurs, that the contract for the new UHF radio system be awarded to LA County -,Radio Systems Division. Reject the Buddy Corporation bid as non-responsive, and award the contract to LA County - Radio Systems Division in the amount of $156,297.10. AGN/542 app�0o �l�D 14gZ-il �a stem: BID EVALUATION - BUDDY CORPORATION 1. Bidders were instructed to submit one copy of the proposal forms and three copies of supplemental information. Buddy Corporation submitted three copies of the proposal forms and one copy of the supplemental information. 2. Section 2.5. of the General Specifications required bidders to include complete model numbers and technical specifications for all .items proposed. Buddy Corporation did not comply. 3. Section 2.9 of the General Specifications required bidders to clearly state their policy and procedure for maintenance and repair of all items proposed. Buddy Corporation did not comply. 4. Section 2.10 of the General Specifications required bidders to state plans for assuring an on-going .stock of replacement parts for all items proposed. Buddy Corporation did not comply. 5. Section 2.11 of the General Specifications required that the proposal be signed by a corporate officer, owner, or partner of the firm. The Specifications permitted the proposal to.be signed by an agent, if the agent is authorized. to sign contracts on its behalf. It appears that Buddy Corporation did not comply. Information received by staff indicates that Buddy. Corporation is wholly owned by Mr. James Kay. The bid was submitted under the signature of Mr. Vincent Cordaro, Service -Manager. Mr. Kay was not listed in the proposal forms as having a principal interest in the bid. 6. Section 3.2 of the General Specifications required bidders to submit documentation that their proposed system will meet area coverage and reliability requirements. The General Specifications specifically stated, in capital letters, that "FAILURE TO SATISFY COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS WILL RESULT IN A REJECTED BID." The City's consultant has informed staff that in his opinion Buddy Corporation failed to satisfy these requirements. 7. Section 3.4.1 of the General Specifications required bidders to submit a preliminary implementation plan with their proposal. Buddy Corporation did not comply. 8. Page C-5 of the proposal forms required bidders to provide five references for which the bidder has performed similar work within the past 2 years. Buddy Corporation The City's consultant has stated that in at least three cases, the services provided were not comparable with the scope of work required for the City.