HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/1991, 9 - AWARD OF COPIER CONTRACT f
9. AWARD OF COPIER CONTRACT (STARER/90-34 10 Mir-L)
Report not received by agenda.close: To :be distributed under sepaiate cover:
9.
MEETING DATE:
"� � ►�Ifl11���j��lll city of San tuiS OBISPO -s-
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: AWARD OF COPIER CONTRACT
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Award the contract for the purchase of six Minolta copiers to the firm of Copytron in
the amount of $54,965.25 and authorize the Mayor to execute the purchase agreement.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
No City purchase in recent history has received the level of evaluation and scrutiny as
this proposed acquisition of six copiers. The primary consideration in any of the City's
purchases is that we receive the best value for cost. This purchase is no exception.
Due to its highly technical nature and the variety of features available, the City has used
a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for this purchase in accordance with the City's
adopted purchasing policies. Under an RFP approach, factors other than cost are
appropriately considered in the award of the contract. In the case of copiers, we believe
that ease of operation and user-performed maintenance - which directly translate into in-
house staff costs - are key factors to be considered in determining value for cost. These
can be highly subjective factors, but they are nontheless critical features in evaluating
which copiers will lead to the greatest overall productivity of our organization. We
believe that a high level of involvement and participation by the users in the selection
process is the best method of making these difficult evaluations.
As described below, the City has used an extensive user evaluation process. It is the
strong consensus of the users that the Minolta solution will give the City its best overall
value for cost, and accordingly, it is recommended that the Council approve the award
of contract to Copytron for the purchase of six Minolta copiers.
Based on past discussions with representatives from More Office Systems, (competitors
with Copytron during this purchasing process), it is anticipated that they will address the
Council on this issue and express their concern with the staffs recommendation.
DISCUSSION
Background
The recommendation for the award of the copier purchase was last presented to Council
on November 7, 1990. Provided in Exhibit 1 is the Council Agenda Report from that
meeting which comprehensively describes the needs analysis, policy development,
replacement criteria, request for proposal, evaluation process, and fiscal analysis that led
to the recommendation to purchase six Minolta copiers from Copytron at that time.
More Office Systems, which proposed Canon copiers, expressed serious concerns
regarding this recommendation. Their letter dated November 5, 1990 and staff responses
to it are provided in Exhibits 2 and 3. 9-/
���n�I�Illlulilllllill���°�glUlll city of San Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Evaluation Process
The following is a summary of the three key evaluation steps that have led to the staff
recommendation:
1. Vendor Demonstrations
As part of the original evaluation process, four vendors were requested to provide
demonstrations of their proposed copiers. Based on the results of this
demonstration, the proposal materials, and cost analysis, award of the copier
contract to Copytron for Minolta copiers was recommended to the Council on
November 7, 1990.
2. Minolta and Canon Demonstrations
Based on concerns expressed by More Office Systems about the results of the first
copier demonstration and how they were used in the staff's evaluation and
recommendation to purchase Minolta copiers, a second demonstration was
conducted in order to further evaluate Canon and Minolta copiers. During this
demonstration, comparable volume Canon and Minolta copiers were demonstrated
at the same time, in the same place, using the same materials, with the same
reviewing users.
The results of this second demonstration were very useful in clarifying copier
performance in two key areas: copy quality and speed. Although each of the
copiers displayed different strenghts depending on the type of copying required,
it was the general consensus of the Review Team that the overall copy quality and
speed were comparable between the two copiers.
However, Minolta continued to be rated higher on ease of operation, user
performed maintenance, and other key features. Twenty-one users from a broad
range of departments participated in this demonstration. At the end of the
demonstration, it was their unanimous opinion that the Minolta copier would give
the City its best value for cost. The following is a summary of factors that
supported this conclusion:
Easier for users to operate - Minolta has better:
a. Duplexing capacity (holds 50 vs 20 originals for Canon)
b. Control panel (easier to understand and read)
C. Reduction/enlargement (centers, more options)
d. Paper bypass system (cleaner feed, multi-sheet capacity)
e. Document feeder (more reliable, cleaner original stacking)
�►►Ha►�I►IIu1111111I���► IIUIII city of San tins OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Easier for users to maintain - Minolta has better:
f. Cartridge system for replacing toner
g. Design ("clamshell") for clearing paper jams
I Paper drawer capacity
i. Sorter design (quieter, faster, and less flimsy than Canon)
3. Canon Rentals
After the second demonstration, More Office Systems expressed continued concern
with the City's evaluation process, and requested that they be provided with a third
opportunity to demonstrate that their copiers would provide an equal or greater
value for cost than the Minolta copiers.
They proposed that the existing, old Canon copiers be replaced with their proposed
models on a 30-day rental basis. This would give users an extended trial period
to fully evaluate Canon copiers under actual operatingconditions at minimal cost
risk to the City.
Although concerned that this approach might be unfair to Copytron, who would
not be given a comparable chance to demonstrate their copiers, staff concurred
with this approach for five key reasons:
a. More Office Systems is the City's current copier supplier and they have
provided service to the City for a long-time.
b. They are the lowest direct cost bidder by 11%, and this places a high-level
burden of proof on the staff to justify that there is off-setting extra value in
the Minolta copiers.
C. The potential advantages of on-line stapling (which was identified as a
desirable feature in the City's initial RFP) as well as their control panel and
sorter operation deserve greater opportunity for review.
d. Responds to More Office Systems concerns that users might be basing their
evaluation of Canon quality and performance on existing units - both owned
as well as prior rentals - which are not fair representations of Canon's true
value.
e. Given these factors, we should go the "extra mile" in ensuring that Canon
copiers were being fairly evaluated.
At the end of the 30-day trial period, twenty-seven evaluations were received, with
twenty-two responses reflecting a clear preference. Of these twenty-two responses, 18
supported the selection of Minolta copiers.
�-3
►��i�►�►►VVIIIIIIIIIIIu ������1 city of San WIS OBISpo
WiN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Key features with which more than four users reported disatisfaction include:
■ Recirculating feeder 10
■ Control panel 9
■ Clearing jams it
■ Single sheet bypass 8
■ Duplexing capacity 8
■ Paper drawer capacity 9
■ Toner replacement 10
Key features with which more than four users reported satisfaction include:
■ Recirculating feeder 7
■ Jams 6
■ Automatic stapling 7
Purchasing Process
Under the City's formally adopted purchasing policies, an RFP process should be used
whenever it will result in a better purchasing decision due to the nature of the items to
be acquired. Section 401.3 of the Purchasing Control Manual (page 2) references "office
automation and high-technology" items as specific candidates for an RFP approach as
constant developments in technology make it very difficult to compile detailed
specifications. The RFP for this purchase clearly stated the City's right to waive any
non-substantial irregularities, to consider factors other than cost, and to make award to
the vendor as determined to be in the best interest of the City.
In summary, the recommended award is in accordance with the provisions of the City's
Municipal Code, adopted purchasing policies, and the RFP document.
Minolta's Ability to Perform
During the past six weeks, the City's focus in evaluating copiers has been on the Canon
rentals currently in operation. Accordingly, it is difficult to fully assess whether Minolta
copiers will be easier to operate, maintain, and service than Canon under actual
operating conditions. However, this concern is addressed in the purchase agreement
which provides for a trial 90-day period under which the City will rent the recommended
copiers at Copytron's normal rental price. If the City is satisfied at the end of the trial
period, Copytron will sell the copiers at their agreed upon purchase price and credit any
rental payments made to this purchase. Correspondingly, if the City is dissatisfied with
the copier performance during this trial period, Copytron will remove the copiers and the
sole compensation to them will be the rental payments made by the City during this trial
period.
If the benefits ascribed to the Minolta copiers during the initial evaluations are not
experienced, we can (with minimal cost risk) discontinue their use and purchase the
Canon copiers. Q
d"
d��nn► I�ulllllllllp► II�III city of San LUIS OBISp0
Vi% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FISCAL IMPACT
The following is a summary of the per copy and three year total cost of the final four
copiers evaluated:
Overall Cost Three Year
Per Copy Total Cost
Canon $ 0.0210 $ 9%550
Minolta 0.0236 103,053
Savin 0.0241 103,997
Mita 0.0243 104,845
As reflected in this summary, the Minolta proposal is not the least direct cost solution
(it is second lowest of the four proposals) when solely comparing direct copier purchase
and maintenance agreement prices; the Canon proposal is 11% less than Minolta.
However, when considering other key cost-related factors, such as in-house operating and
maintenance costs, the Minolta solution provides the best overall value and productivity
investment for the City.
Acquisition of the six Minolta copiers from Copytron will cost $54,965.25 summarized as
follows:
Location Model Class Cost
City Hall, Upstairs 5400 Medium $ 8,467.00
City Hall, Downstairs 8600 High 12,702.00
Finance 5400 Medium 8,467.00
Personnel 5400 Medium 8,467.00
Police Station 5400 Medium 8,467.00
Fire Station No. 4 4300 Low 5.162.00
Total Cost 51,732.00
Sales Tax @ 6 1/4% 3.233.25
TOTAL PURCHASE AMOUNT $ 54,965.25
This purchase amount is consistent with original cost projections and will be funded in
accordance with existing budget authorizations and the Copier Management Policy as
follows:
1987-89 Financial Plan
Capital Improvement Plan (E-10) $ 34,000
1989-91 Financial Plan
Public Safety (D-8) 8,000
Organizational Support Services (H-11) 12.965
Total Funding Sources $ 54,965
���fl�►�u��uhlllll��► ����II City of San WI S OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ALTERNATIVES
There are three basic alternatives available to the Council in awarding the copier
contract:
■ Select a Different Vendor
The Council could award the contract to one of the vendors offering the
Savin, Canon, or Mita solutions. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the
proposals supports the award of contract to Copytron for Minolta copiers, and
as such, this alternative is not recommended.
■ Select a Lease or Rental Option
An analysis of the pricing options for rent, long-term lease, lease-purchase,
or direct purchase supports the recommendation to directly purchase the
recommended copier configuration. Long-term lease would be the most cost
effective solution if the City's anticipated replacement cycle for technological
or service reasons is significantly less than three years. Based on the City's
current experience of retaining copiers significantly in excess of three years,
these problems are not anticipated. The primary risk associated with direct
purchase (not being satisfied with the performance of the units after
installation) has been mitigated through the 90 day trial period.
■ Make No Purchases
Efficient duplication of City documents is essential to the effective delivery
of City services. The copiers to be replaced have exceeded their estimated
useful lives, and replacement at this time is warranted. Based on a
comprehensive evaluation of copier needs, additional copiers at the Police
Station and Fire Station No. 4 are also justified at this time. Failure to
acquire the recommended copiers will significantly impact City operations and
result in reduced service levels. Although staff believes that the Minolta
solution is the best overall value to the City, award of contract to Canon is
more cost effective than making no purchase at all.
SUMMARY
In any process that must rely heavily on subjective factors in arriving at the best overall
solution, it can be very difficult to assess and weigh all of the cost, technical, and
performance factors. This is especially true if these issues are discussed in the sales and
marketing arena.
In the case of this purchase decision, there is a simple question that the City must
answer:
■ Which of the two proposals (Canon and Minolta) will provide the City with
the best overall value for the cost?
In answering this question, the staff recommends that the Council award the contract for
the purchase of six Minolta copiers to the firm of Copytron. Although the Canon
ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY ?AL PICK FOR COPIERS - NO MORE JWES
[/�s( Let's get Minolta copiers like we should have all along and get ��•�"'� •��—�—y
this selection process over with. I don't like the Canon copiers because: (Check as Many
as Apply)
■ The recirculating original feeder is confusing, noisy, distracting
jams-up all the time, and scrambles my originals. �p�
■ The control panel is really hard to read, understand, and program. /
■ Clearing paper jams is a bummer; the "clamshell" design of the
Minolta would be much better.
■ Having a single sheet bypass capacity is really time-consuming n
and inefficient. 2s
■ The duplexing capacity is too small; I keep having to run p
additional jobs. O
■ The paper drawers or their capacity is too small.
■ Replacing toner is really awkward and messy. A9
■ It may be a great idea, but the automatic stapling just doesn't work.
■ Service from More Office Systems continues to be a problem.
141'4 I'm really glad we waited and gave Canon a third bite at the 2
apple, now let's get this selection process over with. I like
the Canon copiers because: (Check as Many
as Apply)
■ The recirculating feeder is really okay. 7
■ The control panel is easier to read and program than
1 though it would be.
■ Clearing paper jams isn't such a big deal; 3
■ and there aren't very many jams anyway. �l
■ Bypass capacity isn't really a problem. T
■ Duplex capacity is fine.
■ Paper drawers and capacity are okay. 3
■ Replacing toner isn't so bad. Z'
■ Automatic stapling is great.
■ Service has been pretty good (but then again, they knew
it had to be, so what does that prove?)
Name Department
Please submit your ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY FINAL copier pick by Tuesday, January 15, 1991. There
is no limit on the number of employees who submit a pick (the more the merrier), although there is a limit
on the number of picks per employee: 1(one).
s4' 2 7 sst Werie Kcs, vwo/
THANKS!
�un�i�i►►�IIIIIIIIII�°�'�'►�U�II city of San WIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
proposal has a lower direct cost of 11%, the productivity savings from Minolta's easier
operation and user-performed maintenance more than offset this direct cost differential.
However, the City's primary need is to replace and install six copiers; regardless of which
vendor the Council selects, staff recommends that timely action be made on this item.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 Council Agenda Report of November 7, 1990
Exhibit 2 Staff response to More Office Systems' letter of November 5, 1990
Exhibit 3 Letter from More Office Systems dated November 5, 1990 expressing concerns
with the recommendations contained in the November 7, 1990 Council
Agenda Report
DOCUMENTS ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK
1. Agreement for Copier Purchase with Copytron
2. Copier Survey and Needs Assessment
3. Request for Proposals for Six Copiers dated June 12, 1990
4. Bidders List
5. Proposal Evaluation Summary
6. Copytron Proposal Submission Form
7. Minolta Model 8600, 5400, 4300 Feature Brochures
COPIERS/2-5RPORT.NPF
�8
MEETING/7/90
�DATE:
1ihn►111I j11 city of San Luis OBISPO ITEM NUMBER:
dalown COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance(A1� _L_
SUBJECT: AWARD OF COPIER CONTRACT
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Award the contract for the purchase of six Minolta copiers to the firm of Copytron in
the amount of $54,965.25 and authorize the Mayor to execute the purchase agreement.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The recommendation to purchase six Minolta copiers at this time is the result of a
comprehensive evaluation of the City's offsite and onsite reproduction needs. This
evaluation process included:
■ Comprehensive analysis of the City's onsite copier needs.
■ Development of a Copier Management Policy to address the management of the
City's overall reproduction needs, including standards for the type, purchase,
replacement, and maintenance of onsite copiers.
■ Identification of copiers that should be replaced or added at this time.
■ Comprehensive evaluation and selection of the copier configuration and vendor
solution that will best meet the City's price, performance, and maintenance needs.
The recommended copiers will replace four existing units at City Hall and add one
copier at the Police Station and one copier at Fire Station No. 4.
DISCUSSION
Evaluation of Onsite Copier Needs
The need for the City to comprehensively address its onsite copier needs was first
identified in the 1987-89 Financial Plan. At that time, $34,000 was designated for office
copier replacement and upgrades (page E-10). Additionally, the development of written
policies and guidelines for office copiers was a key Management Team Objective in the
1987-89 Financial Plan (Information Systems Management, page B-7).
The fust step in developing an office copier policy to guide the purchase, replacement,
and management of copiers on a City-wide basis was the development of a copier volume
and needs assessment. Three tasks were performed in completing this first phase:
■ All copier users were surveyed regarding the copier they most used; percentage
of copying performed onsite versus offsite; the type of onsite copying most
commonly performed (such as single page originals, multiple page originals,
9- 9
MY of San lui.s OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
�1415
collating, reduction, and enlargement); and overall copier features
most efficiently support City operations.
■ An analysis was performed of the number of copies made using onsite copiers.
As reflected in Attachment A, over 1 million copies were made onsite during
1989, with the Police Department's Records Section copier accounting for the
largest number of copies annually (over 400,000).
■ An inventory of onsite copiers was developed identifying location, model,
department, volumes, features, age, and projected replacement schedules. A I
summary of this inventory is provided in Attachment B.
At this time, the number of copies made offsite versus onsite is relatively evenly divided:
approximately 94,000 copies are made per month by the City's contract copy vendor
(Kinko's) compared with 96,000 copies monthly onsite.
After this review of copier volumes and performance requirements, a copier policy was
developed to guide the City's acquisition, replacement, and overall management of its
onsite reproduction needs. In addition to onsite copying, this policy also addresses the
City's contract (offsite) reproduction practices. Prepared by the Technical Services
Coordinator, this policy was reviewed by the City's Management Information Committee
and Director of Finance, and was approved by the City Administrative Officer on June
119 1990. A copy of the Copier Management Policy is provided in Attachment C.
With guidance from this policy, the City's onsite copier needs were evaluated on an
organization-wide basis. This evaluation resulted in the recommendation to purchase six
copiers at this time summarized as follows:
1. City Hall, Upstairs Copier Room (Canon NP400) - REPLACEMENT
This copier was purchased in 1982, and performed at or above its rated monthly
capacity since its purchase until it ceased operating in February of this year. The
City's service contractor can no longer provide maintenance for it, and it has been
removed and replaced with a rental unit pending this purchase. Replacement with
a Medium volume copier is recommended at this location.
2. City Hall, Downstairs Copier Room (Canon NP400) - REPLACEMENT
This copier is exactly the same vintage as the City Hall Upstairs NP400, and has
also performed at or above its rated monthly capacity since it was installed. It
runs the second highest number of copies in the City. It has experienced frequent
(weekly) severe breakdowns in the last year. Replacement with a High volume
copier is recommended at this location.
3. Finance Department (Canon NP210) - REPLACEMENT
This machine was also purchased in 1982, and has been making its rated number
of copies every month. It is a very simple, slow machine, and has no special
�Hi�ViIIIIIIIIP�' lldlll city of san Luis oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
features. Replacement with a Medium volume copier is recommended for this
location.
4. Personnel Department (Canon NP1281) - REPLACEMENT
Personnel requires a copier in their department. Their staff prepares a large
number of confidential recruitment packets/oral board binders; doing them at
other City Hall locations takes them away from the office for at least an hour at
a time. By doing them in their own department, they can also be answering
phones, servicing the front desk, etc, while copying. Risk Management has also j
added a heavy, constant, copy burden. Due to the need for confidentiality, these
projects cannot be sent to the City's contract vendor. This unit is currently j
installed on a rental basis, and the purchase of a Medium volume copier is
recommended for this location.
5. Police Department (Records Section) - ADDITION
As approved in the 1989-91 Financial Plan (page D-8), the Police Department
needs to add another copier in the Records Section to augment their high volume
copier. Currently, the Police Department has four copiers: one high volume and
three small to medium volume copiers. Each division uses their small copier for
their lower volume copy needs, and they all use the large copier in the Records
Section for everything else. This copier is also the most centrally used machine,
because anyone who needs a copy of a police report/record has to come to this
section and use this machine (all of the police records are located in that area i
and cannot be removed). The Police Department is finding it increasingly difficult
to get their reports copied and out to the courts in the afternoons because of a
queue of people waiting to use the copier. The Model 7550 currently located
there does the highest volume in the City by double (34,000 copies per month)
over the next lower volume. The Police Department has $8,000 available from
the 1989-91 Financial Plan to add another copier in the Records Section. A new
Medium volume copier is recommended at this location.
6. Fire Station No.4 - ADDITION
Fire Station No. 4.houses the Fire Department's Drafting Division; it currently has
no copy machine. In order to meet the needs of reproducing the graphics and
maps produced at this location, a low volume, high quality machine is required.
As this is a one person division, it is time consuming and inefficient for the sole
staff member to go to the Main Fire Station every time a copy of a map is
required. A Low volume copier is recommended for this location.
Selection Process
Based on the adopted Copier Management Policy and the evaluation of current copier
needs, the CAO authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for six copiers
on June 12, 1990 (a copy of the RFP and Bidders List is on file in the City Clerk's
Office). Under an RFP process, price is not the sole determining factor in awarding the
city of San tins OBIspo
in"Iffam=da COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
contract. In determining the award of contract for this copier purchase, features,
performance, copy quality, ease of operation, user maintenance, and service were also key
factors identified in the RFP. In addition to the City's standard advertising for proposals,
the RFP was directly sent to ten vendors, and five proposals were received by the closing
date of July 19, 1990 from the following firms:
Manufacturer
Represented
Copytron Minolta
San Luis Obispo Konica
Superior Office Systems
Pismo Beach Mita
More Office Systems Canon
San Luis Obispo Panasonic
Golden State Systems
San Luis Obispo Savin
Eastman Kodak
Pismo Beach Kodak
Based on a desktop review, four of the five proposals were accepted for further
evaluation. Although it was not a requirement that vendors propose in all three copier
classes (High, Medium, and Low), it is significantly more efficient from a training and
maintenance support perspective to have all copier needs provided from one supplier.
The proposal from Kodak did not bid for all of the City's copier needs. As the other
four bidders were capable of meeting the City's total copier requirements, the vendor's
ability to meet all of the City's copier needs was used as a selection criteria early in the
process, and the Kodak proposal was deleted from further consideration.
A comprehensive summary of cost, features, performance, and service was prepared for
each of the proposals and is on file in the City Clerk's Office. All of the proposals
were evaluated based on these four key factors by a Review Team composed of
representatives from all of the affected Departments. In addition to evaluating the
proposal submittals, site visits and demonstrations were made for each of the bidder
solutions. Further, reference checks were made on the performance of the proposed
copiers installed at other customers' locations.
Based on this comprehensive evaluation process, it is the consensus of the Review Team
that the proposal submitted by Copytron for Minolta copiers is the best overall solution
for the City in terms of price, copy quality, performance, ease of operation, user
maintenance, and service.
A summary and scoring of the key factors used in evaluating the proposals is provided
��i��i�HiIVIIIIIG��1l�Ill city of San Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
in Attachment D. As reflected in this summary and noted below, the Minolta proposal
is not the least cost solution (it is second lowest of the four proposals) when solely
comparing direct copier purchase and maintenance agreement prices:
Overall Cost
Per Copy
Canon $0.0210
Minolta 0.0236
Savin 0.0241
Mita 0.0243
i
However, when considering other key cost-related factors, such as copy quality, ease of i
operation, user performed maintenance, and ongoing service, the Minolta solution
provides the best overall value and. productivity investment for the City.
I
Benefits of the Proposed Purchase
Special features of the recommended copier configuration that will significantly improve
the productivity and effectiveness of City operations include:
■ Due -to special design features, mechanical failures will be less frequent, and
maintenance and repair will be performed more efficiently when required.
■ Copier speeds for all three classes of copier (High, Medium, and Low) are
significantly faster than existing units, resulting in greater staff productivity and
reduced personnel costs in making copies.
■ Waiting and "queuing" for copying, especially at the Police Station and Fire Station
No. 4, will be significantly reduced, again resulting in greater staff productivity and
reduced personnel costs in making copies.
■ All copiers have an efficient duplexing feature, resulting in less paper usage and
reduced file storage needs.
■ All copiers can use 25% content recycled paper.
.■ Copy quality will be significantly improved.
Purchase Versus Lease Cost Analysis
There are four basic alternatives available to the City in acquiring the recommended
copier configuration: rental, long-term lease, lease-purchase, and direct purchase. A
summary of these purchase alternatives for each of the proposals is provided in
Attachment E. When considering these alternatives over a three year time frame, direct
purchase is the most favorable cost solution. The primary risk associated with direct
purchase is the copier's ability to meet the City's performance requirements under actual
operating conditions. To address this concern, the proposed Agreement provides for a
90 day trial period under which the City will rent the recommended copiers at Copytron's
normal rental price. If the City is satisfied with the performance of these copiers at the
city of San tins OBISPO
j COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
end of the trial period, Copytron will sell the copiers at their agreed upon purchase price
and credit any rental payments made to this purchase. Correspondingly, if the City is
dissatisfied with the copier performance during this trial period, Copytron will remove
the copiers and the sole compensation to them will be the rental payments made by the
City during this trial period.
It is anticipated that future copier acquisitions over the next three years will be Minolta
copiers purchased through Copytron. Accordingly, the proposed Agreement provides that i
Copytron will sell copiers to the City at their current bid prices, or the lowest price
offered or sold to any other customer (whichever is less) over the next three years. I
i
CONCURRENCES
The recommendation to purchase Minolta copiers is based on a review and evaluation
process that included representatives from all of the affected Departments. Review Team
members included:
Administration
Marilyn Cox, Executive Secretary
Peggy Johnston, Technical Systems Coordinator
City Attorney
Sharon Woodward, Executive Secretary
City Clerk
Lori Hansen, Secretary
Sue Noone, Office Assistant
Kim Condon, Assistant City Clerk
Community Development
Barbara Ehrbar, Executive Secretary
Diane Stuart, Secretary
Allen Hopkins, Administrative Analyst
Rick Rocker, Graphics Technician
Finance
Ella Goven, Executive Secretary
Fire
Sergio Reyes, Graphics Technician
Viv Dilts, Secretary
Personnel
Sue Tison, Executive Secretary
Police
Tom Stewart, Support Services Manager
9-�
city of San LUIS OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FISCAL IMPACT
Acquisition of the six Minolta copiers from Copytron will cost $54,965.25 summarized as
follows:
Location Model Class Cost
City Hall, Upstairs 5400 Medium $ 8,467.00
City Hall, Downstairs 8600 High 12,702.00
Finance 5400 Medium 8,467.00
Personnel 5400 Medium 8,467.00
Police Station 5400 Medium 8,467.00
Fire Station No. 4 4300 Low 5.162.00
Total Cost 51,732.00
Sales Tax @ 6 1/4% 3.233.25
TOTAL PURCHASE AMOUNT $ 54,965.25
This purchase amount is consistent with original cost projections and will be funded in
accordance with existing budget authorizations and the Copier Management Policy as
follows:
1987-89 Financial Plan
Capital Improvement Plan (E-10) $ 34,000
1989-91 Financial Plan
Public Safety (D-8) 89000
Organizational Support Services (H-11) 12.965
Total Funding Sources $ 54,965
ALTERNATIVES
There are three basic alternatives available to the Council in awarding the copier
contract:
■ Select a Different Vendor
The Council could award the contract to one of the vendors offering the
Savin, Canon; or Mita solutions. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the
proposals supports the award of contract to Copytron for Minolta copiers, and
as such, this alternative is not recommended.
■ Select a Lease or Rental Option
An analysis of the pricing options for rent, long-term lease, lease-purchase,
or direct purchase supports the recommendation to directly purchase the
recommended copier configuration. Long-term lease would be the most cost
effective solution if the City's anticipated replacement cycle for technological
or service reasons is significantly less than three years. Based on the City's
current experience of retaining copiers significantly in excess of three years,
these problems are not anticipated. The primary risk associated with direct
city o� san Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
purchase (not being satisfied with the performance of the units after
installation) has been mitigated through the 90 day trial period.
■ Make No Purchases
Efficient duplication of City documents is essential to the effective delivery
of City services. The copiers to be replaced have more than exceeded their i
estimated useful lives, and replacement at this time is warranted. Based on
a comprehensive evaluation of copier needs, additional copiers at the Police
Station and Fire Station No. 4 are also justified at this time. Failure to
ill significantly impact City operations and
acquire the recommended copiers wi
result in reduced service levels. As such, this alternative is not recommended.
I
SUMMARY
Based on a comprehensive evaluation of the City's copier needs, the purchase of six
Minolta copiers is recommended at this time. To implement this purchase, award of
contract is recommended to the firm of Copytron in the amount of $54,965.25.
ATTACHMENTS
A. 1989 Copier Volumes
B. Current Copier Inventory
C. Copier Management Policy
D. Summary of Key Proposal Factors
E. Purchase Versus Lease Cost Analysis
DOCUMENTS ON FILE WI'T'H THE CITY CLERK
1. Agreement for Copier Purchase with Copytron
2. Copier Survey and Needs Assessment
3. Request for Proposals for Six Copiers dated June 12, 1990
4. Bidders List
5. Proposal Evaluation Summary
6. Copytron Proposal Submission Form
7. Minolta Model 8600, 5400, 4300 Feature Brochures
COPIERS/10-16RPT.WPF
Attachmen _
Wr pp�
Q U9
N
LO
� N �
N con - — N
•� 8 <
J Ln m
N
O Q o
U �Ln
N
f ^^
0 59
J �
r r Lf'
N
L O
T �S C .p p
WT C. .f. cn U
a N
ZUZ
N ���[
op N
3;
Attachment ,:..._
~ NN
Z N N N N
� L L L L i L
CL-J N 3 3 N
_ W ]L Y N N N Y N\Y O O
CO O O .--� •-•� •--� O O •--• Z O Z Z --�
41
C
d
Cr
W r r r r r r r r 7 7 01 0) OJ 0)
N rrrrrrrr •rr L71 LT L01 S-
i i L L
V) NN V) VNN V1 V1 V12f JJJJ
La tD Ln � .••r l-, Ln N 0 00 N N N N
COCOC000000000MC00000000
G 0101 C1 M O1 C1 C1 4M 0101 C1 M(7101
N •--�.--� .-•� .--r.--i .--� .-1.-•� .--'.--�.--r .-�.--�
OC 2
> Q U
W
LdCN-
C1.
} N •N N N N Ln OO r-t'- .-r L-- t�1� 0 3
dl-•- MMMM%D X00 .--L0000 Z
U O Z . . . . . . . . . . . . .
W \U N N N N N N N N N N N N N C>
Z F- M C
II •� V
g N O O 'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 Co II O R
>- Otn000Lntn0000000 H Ln -0 r
Z C. O CO N O I� N 0 M LL')AD O O M O 11 O Co O-
O w _ _ n .. v eD
.-. st to v r_ C1 N Ln 1*- Iqr II to •o S-
IM
O CO CC Z .••L r M II M b
W 9 W 0 0
Q CL f
O tD Ln ^ ON MCe) N C1 to It In C
N .--BOO MO Lnr Nto. Ln OOC1 II CO O w
O 01 M ^.••L O1 .-L to Ln . ^ Ln CO CO I11 I to (v
~C' JW N O1 O1 ON CO O O r`Ln N O to P� II to C
O O1 Q L-r Lf) N 0 O O 11 � .r N
Q. 00 F-0- N %r 11 .--r L w
W 0100 U u c
CC .--L F-U U •--� rtt •�
N b
O �L } C
N V)O J N J F- W L:7 .
W W.- m W V)W J D t o C
L��-•� �--� CC Z\ U CO r O
F--F--QF-W F-W WC CW\mW �C •"
W L-r LAW F-U�--�6.>CLO=UZ\U 0
p= CL ►r LSU JL--rJZCL'\Jf QJ +� C
.•.W30C] JO rd
N W »wCL O.= d LL-CL CL CL Q CL CL 01 r
r Z 0 O
O1 X
O S r O L f 4J N4�
CL > U
N L C F-
C41 Q 4„1 •p L N Ln •r O C L
4-i•r f C � S-4- 0) L C E Ln C b E ++ o
O O C rd 0) N CL-, 01•r +J 07 C 4-
LL CL E -0 CL b S-
C:
C O a-+ C U D N Y Q O Co U- C)
b U L rC C 0 Y p.r L I L w
Ln w d O•� -w urn = LL O •••LrrN r L
W Z +-) L r 41 iG O ik C 3 ik r r iG U N
k-• V) W(D ro F- +) tO oC v c b ro c
o =) z►. x M S- w 4) u 0 u alxx a� v
O L--L H a L d O V w u C W .- V u d
>f2 = Q
4•1 0) L CL"r •r• rd i r •r >1 N L
a� UU N Y U L.- rOr C CU Y O V
-rZ Q O b r0 N O o L O •- C- 7 0 -- •� O Z b
U L--L EJ 33 CL'U CL 3 CL LL Cl- CL000- * 4J
4+
o O
lT
r 01
L Ln 0 Ln Li. Li U- O O1
A ZJ Ln Ln LnLnC .• (• O -+ N000Ln N
Q W .--r Ln Ln Ln O OO CO O Ln
r Z CO N N Kr Iw Iw n O)
O1 Q O CL CL CL CL C3- CL CL CL CL M CL CL CL CL N -
N C..) E ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ b
0)
rrNMC' Ln t.0 r, 0010 .--• NM
AI)NIINNI RATION DF-PAlt,' NIHN1 It:t' NO:R10RANt)Uht %ttachment
Management of City Copying Needs
OVERVIEW
This policy addresses the City of San Luis Obispo's document reproduction program, both in-house and off-site. The purpose
of the policy is to ensure that documents are reproduced in an efficient and effective manner . The policy will take effect upon
approval of the City Administrative Officer, and will be reviewed annually when the off-site copy contract is renewed. The policy
will be administered by the Technical Systems Coordinator.
POLICY
I. In-house and off-site copying volume guidelines.
Generally, it is more cost effective to send copying services to the City's off-site copying services contractor. Therefore,
copying of documents requiring 10 or more copies of a single sheet and not needing the copies for 6 to 24 hours, should
be sent out. Labor,equipment,and maintenance factors make this more economical and efficient. For immediate copying
needs, the city will provide for at least three operational levels of walk-up copiers for use within individual departments
and divisions. General guidelines arc provided below.
A. OFF-SITE COPYING: Any volume greater than 10 copies This includes small numbers of copies of large
documents ie.2 copies of a 15 page document.
B. IN-HOUSE COPYING: AIVYvolume over 10 copies should ONLYbe dont in-house when tvneliness or confidentiality
prevent the document from being sent out Taking that into consideration,the three levels of in-house copiers should be
used as follows:
Large Copiers 50 copies or under.
Medium Copiers 30 copies or under.
Small Copiers 10 copies or under.
I1. Acquisition of Copy Machines
A. Funding for all copy machine acquisitions will come from either the Equipment Replacement Fund, Capital
Improvement Plan,or the Organizational Support Services Operating Program budget,consistent with Financial
Plan Policies
B. During the analysis of copy machine needs and bid evaluations, cost will only be one factor among many to be
considered.
C_ The choice of lease, rent, lease/purchase or purchase will be used for each copy machine acquisition as best
benefits the City in each situation.
D. The Technical Systems Coordinator will establish and administer a replacement cycle polity for all copy machines.
As a part of that replacement policy,funds for copy machines to be purchased will be included in the Equipment
Replacement Fund program where applicable.
1
111. St:indard SlxziGcations for Copy Machines.
There arc 4 levels of copy machines which will be considered for use by the City. A( the time that need of a new machine
is established, an analysis of the specific users requirements will be done to determine which category is appropriate.
The levels are:
A. VERY HIGH SPEED/VOLUME: Target use: centralized copy services for Citywide copying. Target volume per
month: 50,000 topics and up.
B. HIGH SPEED/VOLUME Target use: central copy site for large number of users; multiple divisions and
departments; high volume and quick turnaround time needs. Target City volume per month: 25,000 to 50,000 topics.
Industry rating. 50,000 topics/month.
C. MEDIUM VOLUME: Target use: divisional or isolated site main copier. Target City volume per month: 10,000
to 25,000 topics. Industry rating: 30,000 copies/month
D. LOW VOLUME: Target use: secondary copier in department or site with high demand for more than one copier,
or need for very simple single sheet copying. Target City volume per month: 0 to 10,000 copies. Industry rating: 10,000
topics/month.
IV. Management and Operation of In-house Copiers.
A. Management- The Technical Systems Coordinator will manage the City's on-site copy equipment. This includes
developing copier policies, recaving new copier requests,coordinating the analysis and procurement of any and
all copiers, coordinating trouble call,, managing maintenance agreements, and coordinating key operators'
B. Mainteaancc All copiers owned, leased, or rented by the City will be covered by a 3rd party maintenance
agreement, provided by a vendor certified to work on the spec machine's brand.
C. Operation: Each copy machine will have a'Key Operator or 'Key Operators', appointed by the Departmcn,
Head(s) of the dcpartment(s)/division(s)/site(s) who is/are the main user(s) of the equipment. The Ked
Operator(s) will be thoroughly trained in the use and routine maintenance of the copy machine, and will be
responsible for.
a. Performing routine weekly maintenance and cleaning.
b. Serving as the users' main contact for problems encountered with the equipment-
c.
quipmentc. Calling the Maintenance vendor for service when problems are encountered.
d. Informing the Technical Systems Coordinator of severe or repetitive equipment problems.
e. Obtaining consumable supplies from the central storage area.
D. Supplies: The City Administrative Officer will designate a department responsible for bulk ordering of
consumable supplies, such as paper and toner. ALL copy machine sites will use supplies ordered by this
department. Each sites' Key Operator will be responsible for arranging delivery of supplies to their copier.
V. Management of Off-site copy contract
The Technical Systems Coordinator will be responsible for implementing and administering the off-site copy contract.
APPROVED:
CitAdministritive Officer t Date
2 a
utechment.L.
Summary of Key Proposal Factors
Minolta Mita Canon Savin
Copy Quality excellent excellent poor poor
Score 5 5 2 2
Ease of Operation excellent good good poor
Score 5 4 4 2
User Maintenance excellent excellent fair poor
Score 5 5 3 2
good to poor
Service good good inconsistent fair
Score 4 4 3 3
Price Per Copy 0.0236 0.0243 0.0210 0.0241
Score 2 1 5 1
TOTAL SCORE 21 19 17 10
Scoring Factors: 1 to 5, with 05' being the highest score. Each factor is weighted evenly at 20%
Att80MM8t1L.
PRICING ANALYSIS - COPIERS
COPIER PRICING HIGH SPEED CANON MINOLTA SAVIN MITA
AVERAGE 35,000 copies/month NP 6650 8600 7500 DC5585H
MONTH-TO-MONTH
MONTHLY 973.94 905.00 953.44 831.03
3 YEAR AMOUNT 35,061.84 32,580.00 34,323.84 29,917.08
3 YEAR LEASE
MONTHLY 923.54 852.11 N/A 785.86
3 YEAR AMOUNT 33,247.44 30,675.96 N/A 28,290.96
3 YEAR LEASE/PURCHASE
958.37 852.11 852.73 810.00
MONTHLY
3 YEAR AMOUNT 35,755.09 30,677.08 30,699.43 29,161.00
PURCHASE
MONTHLY 707.58 756.39 741.01 821.51
COST PLUS 3 YEAR MAINT 25,472.75 27,229.88 26,676.31 29,574.19
COST 12,116.75 13,495.68 10,800.31 11,682.19
MAINTENANCE COST PER COPY • 0.0106 0.0109 0.0126 0.0142
COPIER PRICING MEDIUM SPEED CANON MINOLTA SAVIN MITA
AVERAGE 20,000 copies/month NP 4835s 5400 7430 DC3285
MONTH-TO-MONTH
MONTHLY 630.69 594.06 831.25 509.65
3 YEAR AMOUNT 22,704.84 21,386.16 29,925.00 18,347.40
3 YEAR LEASE
MONTHLY 555.71 541.37 N/A .482.17
3 YEAR AMOUNT 20,005.56 19,489.32 N/A 17,358.12
3 YEAR LEASE/PURCHASE
MONTHLY 576.75 541.37 602.14 480.72
3 YEAR AMOUNT 22,016.87 19,490.47 21,678.16 17,307.13
PURCHASE
MONTHLY 418.75 467.89 496.82 484.56
COST PLUS 3 YEAR MAINT 15,074.88 16,844.19 17,885.44 17,444.19
COST 7,154.88 8,996.19 8,813.44 7,364.19
MAINTENANCE COST PER COPY • 0.011 0.0109 0.0126 0.0140
COPIER PRICING LOW VOLUME CANON MINOLTA SAVIN MITA
AVERAGE 5,000 copies/month NP 1520 4230 7150 DC1656
MONTH-TO-MONTH
MONTHLY 278.94 256.44 275.31 176.87
3 YEAR AMOUNT 10,041.84 9,231.84 9,911.16 6,367.32
3 YEAR LEASE
MONTHLY 193.38 263.74 N/A 166.62
3 YEAR AMOUNT 6,961.68 9,494.64 N/A 5,998.32
3 YEAR LEASE/PURCHASE
MONTHLY 201.16 263.74 216.76 172.09
3 YEAR AMOUNT 7,241.76 9,495.64 7,804.36 6,196.24
PURCHASE
MONTHLY 132.74 206.85 160.54 152.64
COST PLUS 3 YEAR MAINT 4,778.63 7,446.63 5,779.56 5,494.94
COST 2,798.63 5,484.63 3,511.56 2,650.94
MAINTENANCE COST PER COPY • 0.011 0.0109 0.0126 0.0158
Includes all maintenance parts 8 toner for comparison purposes.
9-�
PRICING ANACCSIS - COPIERS
TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE 3 YEAR COST
NUMBER. CANON MINOLTA SAVIN META.
COPIER PRICING HIGH SPEED 1 25:472.75 27,229.88' 26,676.31 29,574.19
COPIER PRICING MEDIUM SPEED 4 60;299:52 67;3.76.76 71,541.76 69,776.76
COPIER PRICING LOW VOLUME I 1 4;778.63 7,446.63 5;779.56 5,494.94
---------' --
TOTAL 6 90,550.90 102;053.27 103;997.63 104;845:89
COST PER COPT FOR 4,320,000 COPIES; 0:0210 0.0236 0.0241 0.0243
ACQUISITION COST (ONCLUDES.SALES TAX)
NUMBER CANON MINOLTA SAVIN MITA
COPIER PRICING HIGH SPEED 1 12,116c75 13,495.88 10,800 31 11,68,2.19
COPIER PRICING MEDIUM SPEED 4 28,619:52 35,984.76 '35,253.76 29.,456.76
COPIER PRICING LOW VOLUME 1 2,798.63 51484.63 3;511:56 2,650.94
---------- ------ --- --- --
TOTAL 6 43.,534:90 54,965.27 49,565.63 43,789.89
9-�3
RESPONSE TO MOnE OFFICE SYSTEMS'
LETTER OF NOVEMBER 5, 1990
OVERVIEW
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to the concerns raised in More Office
Systems letter of Nobember 5, 1990. Many of these concerns have been addressed
through subsequent user evaluations - specifically their concerns regarding the level of
user participation, "halo effects", and copy quality.
AGREED UPON COST FACTS
Before discussing the specific issues raised by More Office Systems in their letter of
November 5, 1990, the following is a summary of facts upon which the staff and More
Office Systems agree regarding the costs of the Canon and Minolta proposal assuming
that approximately 4,300,000 copies are made over a three year period by the six copiers
(one high volume, 4 medium volume, and one low volume):
Minolta Canon
Purchase cost (six copiers) $54,965 $43,534
Maintenance (3 year total) 47.088 47.017
Total three year cost $102,053 $90,551
Cost Per Copy $ .0210 $ .0236
To summarize the cost facts:
■ There is a $ .0026 direct cost per copy difference
■ This is an 11% difference in direct cost
RESPONSE TO CONCERNS
More Office Systems raises six basic issues in their letter:
■ Unfair judgement of staff which is based on past performance and service needs
of old Canon equipment rather than the units proposed
■ Method of evaluating subjective factors
■ Level of participation of Review Team
■ Copy quality
■ Costing of maintenance services
■ Service and reference checks
The following is a response to each of these basic concerns:
Judgement of Staff
Canon believes that they were unfairly evaluated based on the performance and
maintenance needs of existin copiers rather than those proposed.
Staff Response
It is possible that there is a negative "halo' effect based on the performance of some of
the copiers currently in place. However, the evaluations made by the Review Team
regarding copy quality, ease of operation, and user maintenance were based on the copier
demonstration made by More Office Systems. In this area, all of the proposers were
playing on a "level field" in terms of their ability to present their machines to the Review
Team. Further, it should be noted that any negative "halo' effect reflects on more than
just the older units. For example, two of the Canon units at City Hall are newer units
under lease pending this purchase; and newer units are installed at other City locations-
Evaluation Method
Canon believes that the evaluation methodology addressed highly subjective issues, rates
them incorrectly, and weighs them inappropriately.
Staff Response
Staff concurs that the key factors upon which this recommendation to purchase Minolta
copiers rests (ease of operation and user maintenance) are inherently highly subjective,
and as such, are best evaluated by the user staff. The purpose of the matrix provided
on page C-17-13 of the November 7 Agenda Report is not to empirically demonstrate
in a definitive fashion the correct choice, but to facilitate an understanding of the factors
considered by staff in reaching the recommendation to purchase Minolta copiers. The
fact that these factors would be considered in addition to price was clearly noted in the
City's Request for Proposals (RFP).
Review Team Participation
Canon states that only seven staff members attended their demonstration and their
opinion is being overly relied upon in making the Minolta recommendation.
Staff Response
As noted on page C-17-6 of the November 7 Agenda Report, fifteen key user staff were
involved in the initial review process. Due to scheduling conflicts, not all Review Team
members participated in all copier demonstrations, nor was there an expectation that all
would. However, information from the demonstrations was freely discussed and shared
by all of the Review Team members. In summary, given the nature of this purchase,
review by a core group of seven staff members representing a broad range of
departments and locations represents a very high level of key user staff involvement in
the decision-making process. During the "Copier Shoot-Out" and Canon trial rental
period, this was subsequently expanded to a much broader group of users.
9-.2�
Copy Quality
Canon believes that their copy quality is acceptable.
Staff Response
It is the strong consensus of the Review Team that the Canon copies made at the
vendor's demonstration, which is the same "playing field" provided to the other
candidates, were significantly inferior to the copies made by both Mita (the No. 2 rated
copier overall) and Minolta. Further, it was the Review Team's belief that the copies
were no better than those currently being made on the "old" copiers.
The Review Team's initial evaluation of copy quality was based solely on the vendor's
demonstration, not existing copy quality except as a basis of comparison.
However, based on the results of the "Copier Shoot-Out", user staff generally agree that
Canon's and Minolta's copy quality are comparable.
Costing of Maintenance Services
Canon has two concerns related to this issue:
1. Original maintenance service cost assumptions
2. Volume projections
Staff Response
1. More Office Systems is correct in pointing out that the initial (October 16 Agenda
Report) maintenance service cost comparisons were not accurate, which is the
reason that this item was pulled by staff. In the original RFP, "maintenance costs"
weie not adequately defined; it appears that there are a number of items (toner,
drums, rollers, developer, fuser oil) which can be included under the generic
heading of "maintenance".
To correct this RFP ambiguity, a supplemental maintenance proposal was
requested from the four finalist copiers (Canon, Minolta, Mita, and Savin) further
specifying the cost components of service maintenance. The cost comparisons
provided on pages C-17-14 and 15 of the November 7 Agenda Report reflect
correct maintenance cost assumptions.
2. When the maintenance cost issue was brought to staff's attention by More Office
Systems, it focussed greater staff attention on the maintenance cost component of
the proposals. Under the initial cost analysis, the high-end rating capacity of the
proposed copiers, not anticipated City volumes, was used in the cost analysis. The
projected volumes were modified for the sole purpose of better reflecting volumes
that the City can reasonably anticipate over the next 3 years. For comparison
purposes, the City's combined complement of fourteen copiers made only 1.1
million copies during 1989; the current volume projections for cost purposes is
1.3 million copies for only six copiers. Although appropriately conservative for
comparison purposes, the current volume projections continue to be significantly
higher than we will probably actually experience from these six copiers over the
next three years.
9.4
Service Agreements and References
More Office Systems believes that:
1. Staff has underrated their service to the City
2. Copytron (Minolta) has not been appropriately backgrounded
3. Their service must be better since they have 16 service technicians compared with
3 at Copytron
Staff Response
1. In evaluating More Office Systems's service, staff relied heavily on the City's
current experience. We believe that this is a better indicator of More Office
Systems' future service to us than reference checks from other customers. As
noted in the November 7 Agenda Report, staff ratings were inconsistent ranging
from good to poor based on various locations. In considering the negative "halo"
effect discussed previously, it should be noted that the inconsistent service includes
the newer as well as the older Canon units currently in place. Ultimately. staff
believes that customer service can only be defined by the customer.
2. Although these reference checks were not originally performed by the Director of
Finance, Cal Poly and Vandenburg have been directly contacted by him in
response to More Office System's letter. The background information originally
developed by staff has been confirmed by this follow-up check.
3. The level of service technicians is related to the scope of service to be provided
as determined by:
a. The number of units to be serviced
b. Service required by the units in place
Based on More Office System's statement that they service more units than anyone
else in the Central Coast, it is reasonable (on a simple copier-to-technician ratio)
that they would require more technicians to provide service than other vendors.
Ultimately, service performance can only be evaluated based on the vendor's
demonstrated ability to meet a specific customer's service expectations. This is an
especially difficult factor to measure without direct customer experience; in the
case of More Office Systems, we have this experience to draw upon in predicting
future service capabilities.
SUMMARY
In any process that must rely heavily on subjective factors in arriving at the best overall
solution, it can be very difficult to assess and weigh all of the cost, technical, and
performance factors. In conjunction with the follow-up evaluations (Copier Shoot-Out
and Canon rentals), staff believes that it has devoted long, thoughtful hours in
determining which proposal will provide the City with the best value for cost and the
most cost-effective approach to its in-house copying needs.
COPIERS/RESPOVRV.WPP
10MF,7, 7771. 1 tfTIKKQ I Ml iii
IL
t t
ELECTRONIC OFFICE EQUIPMENT
-0 IN;-G f1ENIDA
November 5 , 1990
Honorable Members of the Council c���
City of San Luis Obispo EA � ?
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you for the opportunity to present our position regarding
the bid for photocopiers.
Enclosed you will find a comprehensive study which we hope
will demonstrate to you that Canon and More Office Systems
represent the soundest choice for the City of San Luis Obispo.
In addition, we are prepared at this point to offer to the
Council a Three Year Performance Guarantee. If, in the
Council 's opinion, the equipment performs below reasonable
standards, More Office Systems will replace the equipment
in question with an equal or higher rated copier at no charge.
We are sure that this guarantee will aleviate any isolated
concerns by some members of the review committee.
We would appreciate a call before the City Council Meeting
on Wednesday, November 7, to discuss what our position should
be during the public hearing.
Thank you for your fair consideration in this matter.
S , cerely,
MO FIC SYSTEMS
[El*f
STO:
udes Action ❑ FYI�❑,�DD(R RECEIVEDTito Molfi o O lidAM DIRMM
Manager '°y� p NOV 6 1990
Er ERxioruc. ❑ POLICECK CITY COUNCIL
❑ MGW .TEAM ❑ PIC:DM SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
❑ C .DRILE ❑
Authonzed dealer for:
1
j Canon
Mail: Post Office Drawer 9110, San Luis Obispo, California 93403
Santa Maria, Phone: (805) 922-0407 Panasonic
San Luis Obispo, Phone: (805) 544-3038
' J
C 0 S T A N A L I S Y S
OVERVIEW:
More Office Systems has served the City of San Luis Obispo
since 1981 . The CAR report states that "the current
equipment has performed at or above rated capacity since
purchase" and this equipment has "more than exceeded their
estimated smf.ul:• life. "
National statistics (Dataquest Inc . ) show that copiers in
general (all brands) are replaced, on the average, every
40 months. We have equipment presently in use at the City
that has been serving you for over 100 months (Canon NP200
at the Police Dept) .
It is true that from time to time , in the last year, we
have had ocassional delays in getting needed parts from the
manufacturer. On ocassion we have had delays in getting a
technician to the account but this should be balanced with
the fact that there has not been any factory available
training on these products for several years.
All and all , we feel that More Office Systems has done a
remarkable job servicing your present equipment. Your
copiers have lasted more than 2 times the national average.
we feel More Office Systems has had a great deal to do with
this fact_
COST FIGURES:
The City is in agreement that More Office Systems proposed
the lowest bid for photocopiers. There is also agreement
that the Canon equipment proposed by More Office Systems
meets all the specifications the City requested.
More Office System's bid was for $43 , 534. 90 compared to
Copytron' s $54, 965. 27. This means that the City is being
asked to spend 26% more with Copytron for similar products.
IMPACT OF COST IN FINAL EVALUATION:
The City has opted to give the following factors as much
consideration as Cost ( 20% each ) .
Cost Analisys 2 of 3
** Copy Quality (See special section in this packet )
Ease of Operation (Please refer to the numerous
reports included)
** User Maintenance (Please refer to attached reports)
i
** Service (See our special section in this packet)
I
Everyone will agree that all of these factors are highly
subjective. A fifteen member committee was charged with
the responsibility of rating each factor but it should be
noted that half or less attended the demonstration in our
office.
National ratings and scores of local references directly
contradict the committee's findings.
We feel that More Office Systems is being judged harshly on
the basis of the current performance of 8 year old
equipment and request that the City Council gives Cost a
higher consideration than 20%, consistant with common
purchasing practices_
COST OVER THREE YEARS:
Several weeks ago the City was ready to award the copier
bid to Copytron on the basis of cost .
The City took the original equipment cost and added the
cost of maintenance for a period of three years and a total
copy volume of approximately six and half million copies.
In those calculations the City neglected to include the
cost of toner in the Copytron bid. It was under those
conditions that the Copytron bid was lower for three years
and six and a half million copies.
With minutes to spare More Office Systems was able to
demonstrate to the City that their Copytron study was
inaccurate. When the cost of toner was included the final
figures changed drastically.
In the latest summary of costs the City has decided to
change the estimated volume for the next three years. The
current estimate shows approximatedly 4 million copies in
three years ( compared to six and half million a few weeks
ago when it was percieved that Copytron had a lower per
copy cost for maintenance ) .
' '30
Cost Analisys 3 of 3
If the City had chosen to be consistent in the method of
evaluating costs it would show that More Office Systems is
approximately $18,000 less expensive than Copytron.
Even with the lowered figure, the results show that costs
remain in our favor for three years at about $12, 000.
$11 ,500 or $18,000 More Office Systems has the best
equipment for the lowest price. Research Test Reports show
it, the sample copies clearly demonstrate it and our
hundreds of satisfied users confirm it.
MORE OFFICE SYSTEMS
11-5-90
9-3 /
C O P Y Q U A L I T Y
OVERVIEW:
A fifteen ( 15 ) member committee was charged with the
responsibility to judge the copy quality of the copiers
proposed in the recent City bid.
Of these members, only about half attended a demonstration
of the proposed Canon copiers in our office and a great
deal of time was spent answering questions regarding
performance and service of the city' s current 8 year old
Canon copiers.
The Minolta copiers were given a 5 while the Canon copiers
were judged a 2.
Enclosed you will find ample evidence to support a great
concern in the manner in which this point value was given.
SAMPLE COPIES:
More Office Systems approached, on 11-5-90, the offices of
Cal Poly University ' s Purchasing Dept. for the purpose of
getting true, unbiased copy samples on Minolta and Canon
equipment .
A difficult sample original was used (pencil on lined
paper ) and 6 copies were made on Canon and Minolta copiers .
All the copies were made without making any adjustments on
the equipment: " just put it down on the glass and press the
print button"
The Minolta copier was one month old while the Canon copier
was a one year old unit_. The results are enclosed and
should speak volumes as to copy quality.
Mr . Stoskopf , from the University, signed the back of one
of the sets copied to verify the authenticity of this test .
These signed copies are available for your inspection upon
your request .
ADDITIONAL PROOF AS OF CANON QUALITY:
Enclosed you will also find the following awards :
9-.3�
"Manufacturer Of The Year" .by NOMDA, the industry trade
association . Literally thousands of office equipment
dealers in strength.
"Most Outstanding Copier Line" Buyers Laboratory.
( report included) .
'Copier Of The Year: Canon NP6650" Buyers Laboratory.
(see enclosed report ) . Please note that the strengths
listed are the very same ones that the City is interested
in : Copy quality, ease of use etc.
"Gold Medal Award: NP6650" Hanson 's Guidelines
"#1 in placements, 1989" Dataquest Research a division
of Dunn & Bradstreet. Please note that this makes it 8
years in a row for Canon as #1 in placements in the USA.
"Outstanding Overall Performance"
"Outstanding Copy Quality" NP6650 Datapro Research a
division of McGraw-Hill Information Services
MORE OFFICE SYSTEMS
11-5-90
Q 33
SERVICE
OVERVIEW:
Service was given, in the decision process, equal
consideration as cost (208 each ) . It was understood that
this area represented the vendor' s present and past ability
to service similar installations.
In the invitation to bid the City asked for references
"having the same equipment proposed herein" . .
REFERENCES CHECK:
More Office Systems was given a score of 3 with the comment
"poor to good-inconsistant" . Copytron was give a score of
4. We asked the City to explain to us how they arrived at
these conclusions. We were told "by checking the
references provided in the bid" . We would like to make the
Council aware of the following discrepancies:
DISCREPANCIES:
A- CAL POLY AND COPYTRON:
Our office checked with Mr. Ray Macias and his staff at Cal
Poly' s Purchasing Office. He states that, to date they
have not received a call from a City representative
regarding Copytron or Minolta. You should also be aware
that as of 7-19-90 (date of bid) the University had just
begun the process of awarding a bid to Minolta for 23 units
and over 20 still needed to be installed.
In addition the University does not have, then or now, any
Minolta 8600s, as the Copytron reference page crearly
states. We feel that this alone should disqualify them
from consideration since it is a misrepresentation of
references.
B- VANDENBERG AFB AND COPYTRON:
Our office tried to reach the referenced phone # at the
Base. It was answered by First American Title. After
trying for an hour we were unable to reach or find the
person listed in the reference sheet.
C- COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA AND COPYTRON:
For obvious reasons this reference will not give an
adequate picture as to the quality of service in San Luis
Obispo.
9s�
D- MORE OFFICE SYSTEMS AND THEIR REFERENCES:
More Office Systems has a large number of units at the
University (approximatedly 80 total ) . Some of these are
owned by the University, some by the departments, some
leased etc.
We offered them as a reference and stated that we have had
a business relationship since 1983.
We have several Canon NP6650 and NP4835 units at the
University, all of them working flawlesly.
On 11-2-90 we were informed by the University that they did
not recall any recent inquiry from the City regarding
references but were told: "rest assured that if we were
called we would have given you a glowing recommendation".
(Randy Stoskopf/Purchasing #756-2231 )
With regards to our other references we were told by the
County of San Luis Obispo (Kathy Salazar) that they have
not received any calls from the city regarding our company.
With San Luis Obispo Coastal School District (Anthony
Bridges ) we were informed that he has recently moved to
Fresno, therefore we do not know if he received a call or
not.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the above information it is clear
that the Service rating for More Office Systems should be
re-evaluated.
Presently, More Office Systems is the largest copier
distributor in the Central Coast with a local Service Dept
staffed by 17 full time technitians, compared to 3
presently employed by Copytron in San Luis Obispo (refer to
Copytron ' s "Copier Performance and Service Proposal" ) .
In addition Copytron has included equipment in their
references that the users do not have. We again ask that
they be disqualified on these basis.
MORE OFFICE SYSTEMS
11-5-90
9-.3-5
iiOiiil i i rLDY0 I U-4iii
I I arm I 111 .. _A
ELECTRONIC OFFlCE EQUIPMENT DATE-
February
ATEFebruary 4, 1991 AGENDAt•rDWS
L�jCp r, 1
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council L[L�'_�� ���
PT�EY ❑ iIIV.DW,
FROM: More Office Systems R, ��K �utT1IIDgL
RE: Copier Contract/ February 5, 1991 Age ®
It r �.
We are concerned that amidst all co -
the pages of data
which have been generated regarding the copier contract, the
basic principles may have been overshadowed. Please consider
the following:
More Office Systems/ Canon copiers should be the
awardee because:
1. USER ACCEPTANCE
Of the 27 respondents to the user acceptance
questionaire 72%, on average, preferred or were willing to
accept the Canon product. (See Attachment A and B)
2. LOW BIDDER
Canon is the low bidder by 26% representing a savings
to the City of $11,431.00. Canon had the lowest per copy
cost. (See Exhibit C)
3_ MEETS ALL EQUIPMENT RFP SPECIFICATIONS -
Also, Canon meets the automated on-line stapling
specification requirement not met by Minolta.
4_ QUALITY EQUIPMENT
Canon copiers are universally recognized as high
quality, state of the art machines with a history of
excellence.
RECEIVED
FFR 4 1991
Authorized dealer for:
4ff CIE
sa PK
BW
Mail: Post Office Drawer 5110, San Luis Obispo, California 93403 qAN LU15SPO, A
Santa Maria, Phone: (805) 922-0407 Panasonic
San Luis Obispo, Phone: (805) 544-3038
5. RELIABLE LOCAL SERVICE
More Office Systems is locally owned and managed with a
staff of factory trained technicians. The company has served the
area since 1971 and has been based in San Luis Obispo since 1983 .
Mr. Statler makes the point that because we are low
bidder there is a very heavy burden of proof necessary to justify
buying more expensive machines . The City' s 35 page Council report
does not offer that needed proof. The survey form circulated by
staff shows that Canon ' s product acceptance is overwhelming among
the 27 that participated. Mr. Statler' s logic in evaluating user
responses seems to be flawed. The subjective factors used by staff
to reach the conclusion to recommend Minolta represent the opinion
of the minority. If both products cost the same amount of money,
then it would seem appropiate to rely on subjective factors. To
do otherwise (with a 26% cost difference) is simply not sound
business .
One wonders if the purchasing agent for motor vehicles
followed this procedure, would all City cars be Cadillacs?
As keeper of the City's tax dollars your duty is to
obtain the best overall value for cost. Buying Minolta ' s will
cost $54, 965.00. Buying Canon's will cost $43, 534.00. The
difference is $11 ,431.00 savings today. Canon 's per copy cost is
also lower. Not only would you have excellent machines, but you
would also have the on-line stapling feature which Mr. Statler
states "may have been under-valued, " and which was a requirement
in the original proposal .
In addition there are several errors made by staff in the
description of the Canon features as they appear in the Survey
Form (Please see Exhibit D) . In one case staff states that the
paper capacity on the Canon is not large enough while in reality
Minolta' s is even smaller.
A last point which truly galls! For many years we kept
the City' s antiquated copiers running. Many employees suffered
fustration with the machines because of the number of breakdowns
and the constant repairs necessary. But we kept them running !
Ironically, we are now penalized for those years of service.
As Council members you are charged with spending
taxpayer 's money in the best interest of the City.
We believe that awarding this contract to a local
business at a lesser price for very high quality equipment is
clearly in the overall best interest of the City of San Luis
Obispo.
ESHIBIT 'A
USER PREFERENCE:
In his report Mr. Statler has made the determining factor
for his recommendation of copier purchase Best Value For Cost based
on user preference and acceptance. An examination of his
questionaire (see Report page 9-7 ) , biased against the Canon product
as it may be, indicates overwhelming preference or acceptance of
Canon.
Of the 27 respondees, on the average, 28% "did not like
Canon" and 72% either "liked" or were willing to accept the Canon
product.
Here is a recap of his questionaire:
Don' t like Likes Canon Total
Canon copiers copiers or have
no clear preference
Recirculating Feeder 10 17 27
Control Panel 9 18 27
Clearing Paper jams 11 16 27
Bypass Capacity 8 19 27
Duplexing 8 19 27
Paper Capacity 9 19 27
Toner Replacement 10 18 27
Automatic Stapling 1 26 27
Service 3 24 27
More Office Systems
2-4-91
CORRECT WAY TO INTERPRET SURVEY EXHIBIT B.
Staff reached its conclusions based on ( 27) responses. Since the
form was designed to show a preference (Minolta or Canon) on a
number of issues it is elementary that when you add Canon's votes
and Minolta's votes on each item the total should be 27 each, but it
does not, why?
The reason is that staff has not properly accounted for those that
did not show a preference on each item. We do not think that anyone
will argue that those should be counted on the side of Canon.
We have re-arrenged staff's survey-form so that the Minolta, Canon
and those that showed no preference appear grouped together (per
item) . It is obvious that Canon is by far the winner_
• The recirculating original feeder is mdusing,noisy.distracting O
:am,.up all the time.and scrambles my origyaal1
■ The recirculating fereder is really day. __Zj-'O
tabAt Z1
■ 'The control panel is really hard to rcad.madont..4 and program. 9
■ The comaspae s casirr,to read and propane than 4 }1
hough• nb
-total no-preference stated,
■ Clearing paper jams e.bummer:the'dam,hctr deep N the
Mhooha oadd be much better.
e Clearing Pala"lams isn't saris•big&at
■ and there aren't.cry many jam,anyay. ..
to y 27
• Haring a tingle sheai byp—capacity is rally time,ensma og
and mcfR ..
.: r n
as Bypan capacity isn't really a problem. 9 + S
• o L-gal a-r
■ The duplexing opacity is too small:I keep having to run
addlional jobs 8
■ Dopl"capacity is fine
• The paper draws or their capacity a too am>U. /
• Paper drasren and capacity arc okay. y. ,
`� ) 7 every single item shows
an overwhelming advantadge
• Replacing toner is really awkward and messy. /o for Canon. These items, f e
■ Replacing lMerisn't ubad. 1 I 2_ 4 example, show an 18 vs 9 a
a 26 vs 1 Canon advantadge
• It may be•great idry bw the amcm.tir stapling jus docan't work.
• Amornsie sapl:rg is per. LOW
I I 7
ye_O X7
as Service from More Office Systems continues to be a problem.
5--lo✓
' Sev:m baa been prcuy good(bnt uhcn.gun,they knew O
h had to be so what do"than prone?)
LOU
EXHIBIT C
TRUE COST DIFFERENCE:
Canon $43, 534.00
Minolta (54, 965 .00)
$11,431.00
TRUE % DIFFERENCE:
11 ,431 = 26.25%
43, 534
r
' �o g• n ^ N °' r
on n o f 3, n n
G 65 c s �' o m• �i °� u o' c o• moo a 6• s e ^ 0 5• to
w B °' o or `o• �' n'S• c u C '" ccp
n
sr aq
g 3 E _ G' a G• G. a = w o ^ wO '< : n
L•J- r S'O OO ^• G• O• (� f'11 N N L n N d ^ G N
G' �+ e ^ '^ r" y n O r o 13.
1 0 v q�q47 s n r
52 m ,c g N ^r °e w ^ c M ^ �pg 9, Q +�
i o, d °, o n v t`ilzi
- G o G n 9 m G n a
° 8 m ^ ^ d o' ww
�•a O
u m
�• n n� ? v 8 d n 6..w W-o In
o� 8 G 0.
l
= Q
k c u
c �
SU S S
n gQ ^
�► 3.� I� IN
1(4 I I'A NO I� I\ I`fl to 3
o
R s B �••� O O O O O O O O
fD C]
y c S ? w B T ["] o Y �'. S �+O o b w •--• +•9 o w +O MI .-9 E R R F-. p o '4 E
r••- y C N G O p' w n p O tG A w n+ D• R .T O' d o � �, tC � � p G p [D f°
f9 N w w O R m 0 +O O ••� +D N N y $ O y -+O tD y "^T B O- d �
f] k Q 9 � G �• 6 d w w n n fD � O T O R w C7 O O (p n+ �p w
O +T O O R y 6 w T w �p F•- �] o R r• q y p (D Q T fD p fD fD y O
T n Q n.. w fD +--• r- �O T w +"w +•C 6 `-• p d R p y
T fU A "^ T T A n +-i +O O p tD Y. � � rt p n A •T M ry - p
C"] O +"' G R O• fn w p R O' d w Z w
E3
y ®
p ® w � � 4l F 41 y � .T � T+C +Y b VJ •O O fG O +•' R n) w p R b +"� � O
A fD +-• i M ID V+ �••' T O rp �. y w b +•-• fD G T N O rte,, m�
n B r +'y y C MI r. FT y T d B y < �^ n v �• D• fC P Y, r fD .,.. 03
p O O w rT O w n r-• N r. d h-• y n R r T R R O T O d y O n. T R d
w
l•J O
T1
("f �.q ^ r. A ® p T +--. w y ID +••' O y ."• n O- R p +-S +nC r X /^'�I
O •j �--• G ID � R O O y y b B n O ,.,g •O +O p w n d r-n� y r-
p 0 r-. w fC G E a0 y O 0 0, 3 0 •O'w N N +-1 y n R tD G R M N
B +O +••' T O d O n f^ G lD M y O w a (p
fD
.:J• Q N y y '..'. fD R �. fD O p' n y w n R y p' �..�
N fC T A p fO r0'F w n w w +� ,-d y y "J �„' y C]
sP y O p ID !] w w T O y +..r � � � w N �'� `. O' ny.. p fM E p' d OB � y//
_ fD � ti R fD P• � w r w � MJ � y � � T k! w Q p fD p T y nn-- _-C^ � +"1 +-•• -\
IC n... d B rvY..- O, G• `n' F. w e•f O R w �' ® n y fD T+O t� T R r.' fD w d /A/!
Ar
� fD w w y � G w y � � fo p' tv n.'. � C O• d.Q R p .p .O t R O �. n r. rt \m
y f0 +••• d y d t0•E y m O O M G ^••• T O '•G y 'w0 T r-n n n. M w '
O p n O O d d O NM n O �•C Q M w n 6 n m !] T O d y //�/��
G n r p n+ w 9 - m =r`G w •-n T O y d y w n `� y o B 0 0 V J
G O +..f rt y O y p tD y y fD Q n• +O T w w d w .'-t B R T
y � +•C y :� T d rp-r r-._ n ID O O b y B O ^ w +ws � tel!
Tm
W
w fC M a T y T T N C"1 w M �• � � -'O R O+ D• .Rf r T 0 �^ C
+-• r O N n � r A p T w T p w m w cJ+ w- 4 T p O �. r
.n- O p p' T y N Op Ma n uC K
0m w 9 O B Y
'^ n,•. Q y O y H
� py p R p R '^ � O P y lw'f a O• C Q O' O O H •G � tC ^ O O
[D T O w O '^ •O D a (D w C T A +0 f^ fD .V d •O (^ w .� O PT 1
ID T T b O O „T„ -o w w 7 tC R w �• � f=D .0.++ r B O
Cl n w +i 6 n T N N +"� 1p N p• y p IT y p C
O m rt G rt p' O O O �' N �p n] N y �..� d ►'• R O p n p n
T fO p •-C O r T A iD O y (] w 'O n T+^Y p fD p y (']
G. C. -w Q `+- T R Ml •' w 1'9+-O T �. Q Q 0
w .-- (p T (^ +-C o w m O .++ �• y 0 0 rt �^ w m rt 0 N
O p O' p n +-G Ml y �--•• fD O ID f0 p p O• O p n � G p