Memo to File - Washington



Memo to File

IFB 00713: Conveyance Maintenance and Repair

Comments: Bart Potter

|Overview of IFB 00713 |The Department of Enterprise Services, with this solicitation and resulting contract, seeks to meet its customers’ |

| |need for effective and consistent conveyance-maintenance services – elevators, escalators, moving walks and other |

| |means of moving people and goods. |

|Contract period |The initial contract term for the state Conveyance Maintenance contract will be for two years from a date to be |

| |determined upon award. Maximum term is 10 years. |

|Estimated term worth |$10 million |

| Date |Project developments and milestones |

|December 2012 |Bart Potter was assigned the rebid of State Contract 01507. Director Joyce Turner directed MCC that the contract, |

| |which had extension options available, would not be extended and that a new contract would be in place before its |

|[pic] |expiration on April 30, 2013. |

|Feb. 14, 2013 |Sourcing team meeting. Representatives from DES Facilities, King County, Port of Seattle and DOT/Ferries attended, |

| |either in person or by phone. |

|[pic] |Key points raised during the meeting: |

|[pic] |Language addressing escalator requirements needs to be added to the draft solicitation document |

| |Language about inspections and code compliance needs to be beefed up. |

| |Maintenance logs and maintenance-control plans need to be kept in a central location accessible to the purchaser. |

| |Better language is needed for obsolete equipment |

| |Clarification is needed for major projects (public works) vs. scheduled maintenance |

| |More fluid procedures are needed for moving conveyances into and out of the contract (work agreement) and for |

| |adjusting staffing levels or hours of work performed |

|March 5, 2013 |Pre-posting meeting. Because the solicitation is on an accelerated timetable, there will likely not be a prebid |

| |meeting. So Potter pulled together a pre-posting meeting for potential bidders. Attending were representatives of |

|[pic][pic] |Thyssen-Krupp, Kone, Otis and Primarius Elevator. |

| |Potter shared an early draft of the solicitation, but warned that it should be considered only a broad outline of |

| |the eventual final document. |

| |Vendors had few questions, but seemed appreciative of the chance to meet with DES. |

|March 29, 2013 |Executive Summary. Potter and Unit Manager Dale Colbert met with Farrell Presnell and Christine Warnock to discuss |

| |options for the transition between the old (01507) and new (00713) contracts. Colbert presented public-safety and |

|[pic] |operational reasons why an extension of 01507 is needed. Warnock signed off on the extension of 01507, with the |

| |understanding that after award of 00713 the two contracts would run concurrently to allow for a smooth transition to|

| |the new contract. This authorization also eased the time crunch the project faced, with expiration of 01507 looming |

| |on April 30. Warnock also suggested multiple awards for 00713, perhaps by region, and said the new contract would |

| |offer an opportunity for second-tier competition to be conducted by customers at the local level. |

|June 3, 2013 |Solicitation 00713 posted on WEBS. Bids are due July 10. |

| | |

|[pic] | |

|June 19, 2013 |Pre-bid meeting. Because of the extension of 01507 and the eased timetable, Potter scheduled a pre-bid meeting. |

| |Representatives from Kone, Otis and Thyssen-Krupp attended. |

|[pic][pic] | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|June 26, 2013 |Solicitation Amendment 1. Added the requirement that conveyance-maintenance vendors have a code-compliant |

| |maintenance control program (MCP) in place by July 1, 2013. |

|[pic] | |

|June 28, 2013 |Solicitation Amendment 2. |

| |Q&A, Part 1: |

|[pic] |Addressed a question about bid preferences and penalties; |

| |Answered a question about what contract work is covered by the new management fee; the answer is all work and all |

| |sales. |

| |Clarified negotiation of bid terms (no best and final offer); |

| |Reiterated that bid contents will be available for public view, upon request, after the state’s announcement of |

| |Apparent Successful Bidder(s). |

|July 3, 2013 |Solicitation Amendment 3. Extended the bid due date to July 16. |

| |Q&A Part 2: |

|[pic] |Clarified the state’s intent for obsolete conveyance equipment by amending Appendix B, Section 23; |

| |Addressed the state’s intention to award multiple bidders in two sections of the state; |

| |Amended Firefighters’ Emergency Operation language to call for quarterly rather than monthly testing. |

|July 10, 2013 |Solicitation Amendment 4. |

| |Q&A Part 3: |

|[pic] |Better defined “major projects” in relation to standard or routine maintenance; |

| |Updated the requirement in Amendment 1 that vendors must have a maintenance-control program in place by Oct. 1, |

| |2013. |

| |Clarified that all bidders will be notified of Apparent Successful Bidder(s). |

| |Amended Appendix C, Section 8, to say that required materials will be billed at the parts-plus-markup price as bid. |

| |Provided an amended bid price sheet to allow for bidding overtime rates. |

| | |

| | |

|July 16, 2013 |Bids received. Four bid packets were received by the bid-due deadline. |

| |All bids were received sealed and on time. |

| |Bids were received from Eltec, Kone, Otis and Thyssen-Krupp. |

| |No bids were rejected in the initial determination of responsiveness. |

|Evaluation and Award | |

|Bid tabs/Evaluation considerations|Potter made several adjustments in his evaluations to account for bids that varied in content or format from |

| |requirements in the solicitation and amendments or failed to use the amended forms supplied. |

|[pic] |The coordinator assumed good faith on the part of the bidders and declared the irregularities to be minor |

| |informalities. |

| |Pricing |

| |Eltec, Otis and Thyssen-Krupp filled in the less-detailed price sheet appended to the original solicitation, rather |

| |than the “straight time, 1.5, 1.7, 2.0” sheet provided and explained in Amendment 4. |

| |Adjustment: Potter multiplied the provided straight-time rate by 1.5, 1.7 and 2.0 for the above bidders to populate |

| |the amended price sheet form. |

| |Otis omitted one category of worker (foreman) in its price bid for standard maintenance and repair. |

| |Adjustment: Potter determined the percentage difference between “mechanic” and “foreman” bid prices in the dedicated|

| |project section and applied the same percentage to be able to populate the missing “foreman” bid in the standard |

| |maintenance section. |

| |References |

| |Bidders who were bidding both Sections 1 and 2 were asked to provide five references for each section, and allowed |

| |to have references in common between the sections. |

| |Thyssen-Krupp provided five total references, with one from Section 2 (eastern Washington), on the amended form |

| |supplied in Amendment 1. |

| |Otis provided 12 references and did not use the form supplied. |

| |Kone provided five references for each section, as requested. |

| |Adjustment: |

| |For Thyssen-Krupp, Potter contacted and evaluated all five references; |

| | |

| |For Otis, Potter randomly selected and contacted three Section 1 references and two Section 2 references |

| |For Kone, Potter randomly selected and contacted three Section 1 references and two Section 2 references. |

|Intent to Award recommendation |Based on the guidelines for award detailed in Section 4.7 of the main solicitation document, Potter recommends |

| |naming the following as Apparent Successful Bidders: |

| |Section 1: Kone and Otis section-wide; Eltec King and Snohomish only. |

| |Section 2: Kone and Otis. |

|Notice of Intent to Award |Kone, Otis and Eltec were notified by email that they were Apparent Successful Bidders. |

|July 31, 2013 | |

|Correspondence with Thyssen-Krupp |Thyssen-Krupp had questions following the Intent to Award announcement. Potter responded by email. |

|[pic] | |

|Debrief |Thyssen-Krupp requested by email a debrief for the following reasons: |

|Aug. 2, 2013 | |

| |It is the opinion of ThyssenKrupp Elevator that there was a clear error in computing evaluation scores and |

|[pic] |non-compliance with procedures. As mentioned to me in the email dated August 1st (below), the majority of bidders |

|[pic] |did not use Addendum 4 (the revised Bid Price Sheet) resulting in MCC choosing to apply a multiplier calculation |

| |across the board to anticipate bid rates. |

| | |

| |However, during the pre-bid meeting on June 19th, it was discussed that rates are determined in various manners and |

| |overtime rates are not simply “straight time x 2.0” or a multiplier calculation, as for example, we do not pay |

| |overtime on fringe benefits. These statements should be documented in the meeting minutes. |

| | |

| |Furthermore, a bid Amendment (Amendment #4) was issued but following the procedure to use the revised Bid Price |

| |Sheet, was non-compliant by the majority of bidders (as instructed to do so in the solicitation document). |

| | |

| |The debrief was done by conference call at 10 a.m. Aug. 2 with Sarah Waterman and Bryan Wheeler of Thyssen-Krupp. |

| |Potter provided T-K with a written response (attached) to the issues raised in the request for debrief. Following |

| |the debrief, a protest, if any, was due by Aug. 9. |

|Protest |Thyssen-Krupp did not enter a protest |

| | |

|Award considerations |After the naming of Apparent Successful Bidders, Otis and Eltec – the two ASBs who filled out the wrong bid price |

| |sheet – were informed in follow-up discussions that they would have to live with the pricing as extrapolated by DES.|

|[pic] |Each was asked if it could live with the pricing, and each said it could. |

| |Also, as of the date of award, neither Otis nor Eltec have a code-compliant maintenance control program (MCP) in |

| |place. The award letter to these firms (sample attached) will offer award contingent on completion of an MCP and |

| |acceptance by the Department of Labor and Industries by Oct. 1, 2013. |

|Award recommendation |Based on the guidelines for award detailed in Section 4.7 of the main solicitation document, Potter recommends |

| |official award to the following bidders: |

| |Section 1: Kone and Otis section-wide; Eltec King and Snohomish only. |

| |Section 2: Kone and Otis. |

|Signatures | |

| | |

|Date: |Contract administrator: _____________________________ |

| | |

|Date: |Unit manager: _____________________________________________ |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download