HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/1991, 2 - AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HEAVY DUTY TROLLEY Q�INII�M►IGIIIIIIIuI��IuIU r MEM N6DATE:
►►��► cityo san tuts oBispo �
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT REM NUMBER:
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrat've Off icere+
Prepared by: Harry Watson, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for the Purchase of a Heavy Duty
Trolley
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
By motion:
1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a contract for the
construction of one heavy duty trolley vehicle with the firm
of Specialty Vehicles Manufacturing Corporation in the amount
of $178, 332 .08.
2. Authorize an increase in expenditures of Transportation
Development Act (TDA) fund balance in the amount of $8,300.
DISCUSSION:
Background
At the April 16, 1991 City Council meeting direction was given to
staff to prepare specifications for the acquisition of a heavy duty
trolley vehicle to be used as the City's primary vehicle for the
shuttle program. At the June 18, 1991 City Council meeting the
specifications for the vehicle were approved by the City Council
and direction was given to issue RFP's for the vehicle's
acquisition. RFP's were mailed to it vendors and advertisements
were placed in the leading Transit-related publications soliciting
participation on a nationwide basis in the process.
On August 12, 1991 the RFP process was closed. The City received
three responsive replies. On August 13 , 1991 a review team
consisting of Dave Roeesler, Supervising Mechanic for Laidlaw
Transit, Inc. ; Dennis Cox of the Public Works Department; and Harry
Watson, Transit Manager convened to review the RFP's that were
submitted. A detailed review of the specifications took place and
a scoring system was developed to rate how well the various vendors
responded to the specifications. In addition to vehicle
specifications, three other factors considered were delivery time
required by the vendor, point of delivery, and price (it is
important to note that an RFP process was used to provide the
flexibility to consider more than only cost) .
The three respondents were Eastern Technology, Limited of Lynnfield
Maryland; Chance Coach, Inc. located in Wichita, Kansas; 'and
Specialty Vehicle Manufacturers, Inc. located in Downey,
California. Following are the results of the comparison of the
three proposals. The specification column is not all inclusive,
but represents the key aspects of the specifications. Pictures of
each unit are attached.
Z�/
�l�u►�►��i�IIIIIIIUp��u�i �11 city of San Luis OBlspo
A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
SPECIALTY
SPECIFICATION CHANCE COACH EASTERN TECH. VEHICLES
Appearance Excellent Bus-Like Good
*Engine = 6BTA5.9 NO* YES YES
180 HP Diesel Engine
*Transmission = allison NO* YES YES
MT-M
Chassis Frame Unit =double
channel reinforced frame YES YES YES
Suspension = full air spring YES YES YES
Axles Front 12,000 Ib.
rear 1900 Ib. NO YES YES
Wheelchair Station =Flip-up Seat NO NO YES
Roof Panels = Sandwich
Construction Fiberglass YES NO YES
Street Car Bell = To be rung two
ways - pull and automatic Pull Only YES Pull & Foot
Headlights have ability to be
covered. YES NO YES
Seated Capacity 23 31 29
Total Capacity 39 47 48
Length 25.7 Ft. 33.3 Ft. 30.5 Ft.
Delivery Date** 12/91 if award by 180 Days 280 - 310 Days
9/6/91. If not,
365 days.
Price - As Specked $183,212.00 $176,848.00 $178,332.08
* Although not to City specifications, the engine and transmission listed for the Chance Coach
is suited for its smaller size. The size of the Chance Coach is comparable to our existing
trolley.
** Long delivery dates are quoted by each, ranging from six months to one year if ordered after
September 6, 1991. Chance will deliver in December 1991 if we order by September 6, 1991
by including our trolley in the production run that starts September 16, 1991, which is why the
staff has moved quickly to bring this matter to the Council. While staff is concerned about
only having one Volley with no back-up, (we are interrupting service now for maintenance and
breakdowns), the long delivery times are due to the three to six months the manufacturers
must waft for the chassis and the fact that each trolley is handmade. In addition, Specialty
Vehicles has factored in U. S. Government testing times required for Federal approval of their
vehicle. Chance Coach has just completed their government testing and Eastern has yet to
schedule their government testing. Conversations with the vendors have reconfirmed their
delivery times as firm.
��►�►�i�NIIVIIIII11�inII�I11 city of San Luis OBlspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Ranking and Evaluation
The provisions of Municipal Code 3 .24. 060 (G) have applied to this
contract which, as mentioned earlier, allow the City to use a
Request for Proposal instead of a formal bid. This provides a more
effective comparison of suppliers for the specific equipment that
will meet our needs. Key factors in the decision-making process
have included the trolley's durability, the number of passengers
that the trolley will accommodate, passenger amenities, and a
reliable source of replacement parts and maintenance expertise.
Although these are somewhat subjective factors, they are important
features in evaluating which trolley will lead to the greatest
overall productivity for our transit system.
Specialty Vehicle is being recommended from a transit perspective
due to its larger passenger carrying capacity and its match of
power to weight. When measuring each against the specifications,
Specialty ranked highest. Chance rated lower due to their bidding
a smaller engine and transmission than did Specialty and Eastern,
but the Chance power train matches their smaller size and capacity.
If the Council is comfortable with a smaller capacity than
envisioned in the specifications, then the Chance Coach vehicle
should be given very strong consideration because, in staff 's
opinion, it has greater aesthetic appeal than the other larger
vehicles. It also has the significant advantage of a December 1991
delivery date. Its cost exceeds the recommended Specialty vehicle
by $4, 880.
I
Staff does not recommend the Eastern Vehicle because of its bus-
like appearance.
Ridership
At the June 18, 1991 Council meeting, staff was requested to report
on trolley ridership. The trolley program began operation on July
2, 1990 and has been in continuous operation since that date.
Monthly ridership has been:
MONTH RIDERSHIP
July 1990 18 , 967
August 1990 18 , 245
September 1990 10, 445
October 1990 9 , 668
November 1990 9 ,285
December 1990 8 , 143
January 1991 7 , 496
February 1991 9, 537
March 1991 9 , 368
April 1991 10, 784
May 1991 9 , 945
June 1991 10, 378
July 1991 17 , 005 (- 10% from 7/90)
� -3
����►�►bil►►vi111111�p1► 9���11 city of San LUIS OBIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Ridership was frequently at capacity during the initial months of
operation. As the tourist season ended in September 1990,
ridership leveled off to the 8 , 000 - 9, 000 per month range. With
the current tourist season, ridership is off 10% compared to July
of 1990. This compares with tourism decreases areawide, and should
not be viewed as a diminished interest in the trolley service.
If anything, staff believes that the interest in the trolley has
increased since its implementation. This is based on its use in
various advertising promotions, requests for its use at special
events, and informal comments. During the current tourist season,
several times per day, all of Thursday night, and on many Saturday
and Sunday runs, the trolley is at capacity. Frequently the driver
must pass by stops where potential borders are waiting due to a
lack of capacity.
FISCAL IMPACT:
In the June 18, 1991 agenda item, staff estimated the cost to be
$170, 000 for a heavy duty transit trolley; all three bids are
greater than this amount. The $170, 000 budgeted amount includes
an approved Federal Mass Transportation UMTA grant in the amount
of $33 , 000, leaving a balance of $137, 000 to be financed with local
TDA funds. This funding level was incorporated in the City's 1990-
91 TDA claim, and accordingly, funds have already been allocated
for this purchase at the $170, 000 level.
i
The recommended purchase is approximately $8, 300 greater than the
budgeted amount. Adequate balances are available in the TDA Fund
to fund this additional cost. At the end of 1991-92 , the 1991-93
Financial Plan projects an ending fund balance of $204 , 800 in the
TDA Fund (page G-10) . Under adopted financial plan policy (page
B-7) , all TDA funds are allocated for alternative transportation
purposes, and accordingly, use of this fund balance to purchase the i
trolley would be consistent with this policy.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Reject all bids for a heavy duty transit trolley and direct
staff to prepare specifications for one or two light duty
trolley vehicles, and authorize the solicitation of request for
proposals for light duty trolley vehicles. The estimated cost
of a light duty trolley is $100, 000. 00.
This alternative is not recommended for two reasons. It is
staff's position that a light duty trolley vehicle will not
stand up under the ridership demands that we experience in our
shuttle program, and that maintenance expenses would be
prohibitive. Replacement will be required in five years, versus
10 years for a heavy duty vehicle. Also, based on the current
cost of operation, a second trolley would require an additional
$38, 000 per year in operting costs annually. And, it is quite
�-y
��� i�N►�illllll�li°�°�►��NIII city of San tins OBISpo
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
likely that higher operating costs will be experienced when the
City enters into a new transit vendor contract in Fiscal Year
1992-93 , since the cost for trolley operation is now
artificially low due to the "per mile" compensation basis.
For these reasons staff would suggest that consideration of any
additional operational expenditure of this magnitude be delayed
in the decision-making process until after the City Council has
had a chance to review the results of the Short Range Transit
Plan and the service expansion proposals made in that plan to
the Transit system. For example, the addition of a fifth
transit route is recommended as a short term goal and will
require additional funding. Expansion of trolley operating
costs should be considered in light of this and other proposed
improvements.
2. Enter into a contract to purchase the Chance vehicle. If
Council members wish to acquire a heavy duty trolley of a
smaller size, the Chance vehicle may offer a "compromise" to the
light duty option. In terms of advantages, the Chance trolley
may be seen as more conducive to the downtown atmosphere. Its
smaller size allows greater maneuverability in tight traffic
situations. Its smaller passenger capacity will enhance the
perception of greater use in the slower non-tourist season.
Most important in the short term is its December 1991 delivery
date.
With respect to disadvantages, its smaller passenger capacity
will reduce the number of people the system can serve.
Manufactured in Kansas, there may be less accessibility to
factory expertise, compared to Specialty's Downey, California
plant location.
Although this is a viable option, staff does not recommend the
Chance Coach due to its reduced passenger carrying capacity.
3 . Reject all bids and reissue the RFP. This is not recommended
as staff feels that all of the interested manufacturers of heavy
duty trolleys responded to our RFP process this time. Staff
submits that the results would be the same and only the time of
delivery would be extended.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Contract
2. Pictures of Trolleys (A. Specialty Vehicles; B. Chance Coach;
and C. Eastern Technology)
NOTE: Original specs and bid proposals are in the Council Reading
File.
hw.trol.rpt
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis
Obispo on this day of 11991, by and
between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as CITY, and ,
hereinafter referred to as SUPPLIER.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, on , CITY invited RFP's for the procurement
of one heavy duty trolley per Specifications No. TR 91-202.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said invitation, SUPPLIER submitted a proposal
which was accepted by the CITY for said equipment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises,
obligations, and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of the Agreement shall be from the date this
Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until
acceptance of said equipment.
2 . INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. The Notice Inviting RFPs, the
General Bid Terms and Conditions, the Special Bid Terms and
Conditions, Bid Specifications and SUPPLIERS Letter of
Response are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this
Agreement.
3 . CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For furnishing equipment as specified in
this Agreement, CITY will pay and SUPPLIER shall receive
therefore compensation in a total sum not to exceed
Payment to the SUPPLIER shall be made within
20 days after receipt of an original invoice from SUPPLIER and
acceptance of equipment by CITY.
4 . SUPPLIER'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the
payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned to be made and
performed by CITY, SUPPLIER agrees with CITY to furnish the
equipment and to do everything required by this Agreement and
the said specifications. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, SUPPLIER warrants on behalf of itself and all
subcontractors engaged for the performance of this Agreement
that only persons authorized to work in the United States
pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1985
and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance
of the work hereunder.
5. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFY. SUPPLIER agrees to defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its officials, officers,
employees, representatives, and agents from and against all
7
claims, lawsuits, liabilities, or damages of whatsoever nature
arising out of or in connection with, or relating in any
manner to any act or omission of SUPPLIER, its agents,
employees, and subcontractors of any tier and employees
thereof in connection with the performance or non-performance
of this Agreement. The SUPPLIER shall thoroughly investigate
any and all claims and indemnify the CITY and do whatever is
necessary to protect the CITY, its officials, officers,
employees, agents, and representatives as to any such claims,
lawsuits, liabilities, expenses, or damages.
6. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification, or variation from
the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
effective only upon approval by the Director of Finance.
7 . TERMINATION. If during the term of this Agreement, the CITY
determines that the SUPPLIER is not faithfully abiding by any
term or condition contained herein, CITY may notify SUPPLIER
in writing of such defect or failure to perform; which notice
must give SUPPLIER a ten day period of time thereafter in
which to perform said work or cure the deficiency. If
SUPPLIER has not performed the work or cured the deficiency
within the ten days specified in the notice, such shall
constitute a breach of this Agreement and CITY may terminate
this Agreement immediately by written notice to SUPPLIER to
said effect. Thereafter, neither party shall have any further
duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under this
Agreement, except however, any and all obligations of
SUPPLIER'S surety shall remain in full force and effect and
shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived
by the termination hereof. In said event, SUPPLIER shall be
entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed
from the beginning of the period in which the breach occurs
up to the day it received CITY'S Notice of Termination, minus
any off-set from such payment representing the CITY'S damages
from such breach. CITY reserves the right to delay any such
payment until completion or confirmed abandonment, of the
project, as may be determined at the CITY 's sole discretion,
so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In
no event, however, shall SUPPLIER be entitled to receive in
excess of the compensation quoted in its bid.
S. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all
writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall
constitute the. complete agreement between the parties hereto.
no oral agreement, understanding, or representation not
reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall
be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement,
understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties
hereto.
9. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION. In the performance of the terms of this
Agreement, SUPPLIER agrees that it will not engage in nor
permit such subcontractors as it may employ to engage in
discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race,
-�
color, sex, national origin or ancestry, or relation of such
persons. Violation of this provision may result in the
imposition of penalties referred to in Labor Code Section
1735.
10. AUDIT. CITY shall have the option of inspecting and/or
auditing all records and other written materials used by
SUPPLIER in preparing its statements to CITY as condition
precedent to any payment to SUPPLIER.
11. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be
sent by United States Postal Service, postage prepaid by
registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
CITY: Harry Watson, Transit Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
P. 0. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
SUPPLIER: Dale R. DeLine
Specialty Vehicle Manufacturing Corp.
12229 Woodruff Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
12 . AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both CITY and SUPPLIER do
covenant that each individual executing this Agreement on
behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered
to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
• instrument to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SPECIALTY VEHICLE MANUFACTURING CORP.
Mayor Ron Dunin President
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Finance Director
m� � ._. ! _- .�._. i - � •vim �a
IMP
lZ
3 #
MM
,t
z- -
;L
iw 4wP
1.0
�. -� - .. '- -..._, a �.n •� - -
r•
a i
4'
M
s.
z �
t
_ 4
AL
AVE
R
_•
i•
`} �c •• .P
-M- 1
i
xs 's
t
7
1
c
-�Z
'IF'S
� 1
1�
i, — — --- a
% T 1p l►` .
Ii
oaa
am -
-
Z m
yam:
sst.: j - �• -; i
• ; 'ti .` Riau k� 1,;kgl,� I
Sam-
_ n i
SO
i: f i • �'
s
.d a. <". r't t
ism i1
M ��' s - ;
. 1� •
■ �'' ' •�
rte' A
•" i
I 7 i`
10,
1 -
f i
if f y gip•^"
� r'�F-_i- vc i:� .: •L`:{'rte
cy
Ak
FW
E �
d, r y
ate.•
14
at
14
.41
1 0 L_�^ :.lam -� :� c J ` �.J•.D.•:t�
.-_ - ` ••�X Vic-' •.�•'�
��� to �a�: J. •ti�,Pd
-
i
l
Z ,
1 � /
Oil
Rw
�J !�•.Y`1 lb it ?''
' T
`i
,
, I
,511 - J�75 �� •� A•
b �'
_• _ T 1 g,
ey }Y
R• 7 1 '*Fr
yl v .f
SN.
• t�
J• V
Jot. ./ 1
{fttJ► rip 1
'•r 6 i� e'� qL �� �..
.17L F' t 4
•1 i. . r r k �y W.. •l
iL a tr F
J
• � r1 j � '
•rrfy �. v ry _..)'.' �._�.. �.{'^f. nr1'�•r�jr c^^, lT `•t�5 '° ♦ *'