Memo to File

[Pages:1]

|AWARD MEMO & CHECKLIST |

|Contract 00113 – Tire Retreading Services |

Procurement Coordinator: Steve Hatfield, Ph. 360-407-9276, steve.hatfield@des.

|Contract Type: |

|New Rebid Replacement WSCA Enterprise General Use |

|No restrictions. For use by Washington State Purchasing Cooperative (WSPC) including where applicable: State Agencies, Institutions of Higher |

|Education, Political Subdivisions, and Non-Profit Corporations. This contract will also be available for use by Oregon’s Department of |

|Administrative Services Cooperative Purchasing Program (ORCPP) based on Contractor’s acceptance. |

|Contract Duration: |

|Initial Term: 2 Years |

|Maximum life: 8 Years |

|Max Term Date: The total Contract term, including the initial term and all subsequent extensions, shall not exceed 04/01/2021 unless an |

|emergency exists and/or special circumstances require a partial term extension.  |

|Estimated Value: |

|Estimated Term Worth: $1,000,000.00 |

|Estimated Annual Worth: $500,000.00 |

|Bidders: |

|Number of WEBS registered Bidders notified: 61 |

|MWBE’s notified: 1 |

|Small Business records notified: 08 |

|Veteran owned records notified: 0 |

|Bids received: 4 |

|Bids Rejected: 0 |

| WEBS was used to notify bidders |

|NIGP Commodity Codes: |

|863-42 |

|Flaps and O-Rings, Tire |

|863-20 |

|Tires and Tubes, Farm Tractor and Implement |

|863-30 |

|Tires and Tubes, Misc. (Not Otherwise Listed) |

| |

|863-65 |

|Recapped/Retreaded Tires (See Class 928 if Recapping/Retreading Own Tires as a Service) |

|863-25 |

|Tires and Tubes, Industrial |

|863-15 |

|Tires and Tubes, Off-Road Equipment |

| |

|863-95 |

|Recycled Tires and Tubes |

|863-07 |

|Tires and Tubes, Light Trucks |

|863-05 |

|Tires and Tubes, Passenger Vehicles |

| |

|863-03 |

|Tires and Tubes, Aircraft |

|863-10 |

|Tires and Tubes, Medium Truck and Bus |

|863-30 |

|Tires and Tubes, Misc. (Not Otherwise Listed) |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|Summary: |This contract replaces contract 02806 which expires on 03/31/2013. The resulting Contract is for use by all |

| |members of the Washington State Purchasing Cooperative (WSPC) including where applicable: State Agencies, |

| |Institutions of Higher Education, Political Subdivisions, and Non-Profit Corporations. |

| |This is a mandatory term contract for all state agencies when Tire Retreading Services for class 3-8 vehicles, |

| |non-highway service tires, agricultural tires, and off the road tires are needed as well as rim refurbishing |

| |needs. This will be an optional use contract for any other purchaser. While use of the Contract by Political |

| |Subdivisions and Non-Profit Corporations that are members of the WSPC members is optional, DES encourages them |

| |to use state Contracts. Their use of the Contracts may significantly increase the purchase volume. Their orders |

| |are subject to the same Contract terms, conditions and pricing as state agencies. DES accepts no responsibility |

| |for orders or payment by WSPC members. |

| |An IFB document was developed with input from technical advisors at City of Seattle (city shop), Grays Harbor |

| |Transit, Washington State Department of Transportation, Kennewick Irrigation District (fleet), and the vendor |

| |community. Through my market research, and consultation with the stakeholder committee it was determined that a |

| |wide variety of retread tires were needed and a discount off list price per manufacturer would: reduce |

| |redundancy, and anticipate demand for new applications. |

|Bid Development |

|Stakeholder work |Customer Forum: |

| |I facilitated email and phone conversations to define and develop Specifications as well as Special Terms and |

|Customer Forum |Conditions. |

|Vendor Forum |Vendor Forum: |

| |Technical advisors from the industry were engaged via in-person as well as telephone correspondence prior to |

| |release of the document. |

| |Peter Christoffersen, Wingfoot Commercial Tire |

| |Scott Robbins, Les Schwab Tires |

| |Charlie Allfrey, Phelps Tire |

| |Ken Epperly, Alpine Commercial Tire and Retreading |

| |A prebid conference was also conducted. See the Bid Process section below for details. |

|Market Research: |Research and immersion into this commodity was achieved through meetings with suppliers/manufacturers and State |

| |Agency End Users. |

|EPP Strategy: |During bid development, explored possible EPP Solutions. Previous contract explored these issues and new |

| |solicitation has adopted these practices. |

|Supplier Diversity Strategy: |Outreach efforts included: |

| |Vendor outreach was conducted by: |

| |Supplying OMWBE with an informational letter about the upcoming opportunity and requesting that they post on |

| |their web site. |

| |Supplying Department of Veterans Affairs with an informational letter about the upcoming opportunity and |

| |requesting that they post on their web site. |

| |Posting Solicitation on WEBS invited any and all suppliers to participate in the bidding opportunity. |

|Strategy: |It is MCC’s intention that a price competition will best drive reasonable value, paving the way for customers |

| |and the state to meet current budget challenges. |

| |Previous contract was a one (3) Vendor Statewide award. During the initial term two (2) Vendors were terminated |

| |from contract resulting in one (1) Vendor Statewide. To increase competition and to encourage participation by |

| |Washington Small Businesses the Solicitation was developed as a percentage off manufacturers published list |

| |price awarded by manufacturer. |

|Bid Development: |MCC identified the previous contract as a candidate for Re-Bid due to the consistent usage. Previous contract |

| |was used as a template for this solicitation with extensive changes. |

| |Current Vendor reported very low usage of road side service on previous contract. Including road side service in|

| |this contract includes risk to the vendor and could increase contract pricing. The state decided to remove road |

| |side service from this contract. Roadside service can still be provided, if needed, from the vendors in an |

| |emergency situation. |

| |Stakeholders identified need for agricultural, off the road, and non-highway service retread tires. This need |

| |was addressed by creating a second category. |

| |Vendors presented the service of rim refurbishing. Stakeholders were very positive about this service. Category |

| |3 was created to take advantage of this service. |

| Peer Review |Melanie Williams – MCC |

| |Leanna Sandy – MCC |

| |Dale Colbert – Unit Manager MCC |

| Fee |Management fee of .75% was posted on original solicitation due to DES temporary policy. Amendment IFB 00113a03 |

| |changed this requirement to .74% per DES finalized management fee structure policy. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Bid Process |

|Bid Posted to WEBS: |01/31/2013 |

|Pre-Bid: |Thursday February 21, 2013 – 1:30PM |

|[pic] |1500 Jefferson St. SE, Room 2330 |

| |Olympia, WA 98501 |

|Amendment(s): |Three (3) solicitation amendments were posted: |

|[pic] |IFB 00113a01 was posted to WEBS on 2/21/2013 and was a result of questions and comments from vendors during the |

| |pre-bid. The purpose of the amendment was: |

|[pic] |To Amend sample requirements in Appendix B, Special Terms and Conditions |

| |To Add Labor language in Appendix B, Special Terms and Conditions |

|[pic] | |

| | |

| | |

| |IFB 00113a02 was posted to WEBS on 03/04/2013 and was a result of questions and exceptions to the solicitation |

| |from vendors. The purpose of the amendment was: |

| |Answering questions and amend solicitation due to questions posed by the bidder community. |

| |There were 27 Questions and Answers. Self-Insured Corporations were integrated into the solicitation. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |IFB 00113a02 was posted to WEBS on 03/11/2013 and was a result of DES management fee structure beinf |

| |finalizedThe purpose of the amendment was: |

| |Amend management fee requirement to .74% |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Bid Evaluation—RESPONSIVENESS: |

|Clarifications and acceptance of Bidder submittals, information, and product offerings were applied uniformly for all Bidders. |

|Bid Opening: |Wednesday Dec 19, 2012 – 2:00 PM |

|[pic] |This bid was open to any vendor. Four (4) bids were received and none were untimely. |

| |Vendor |

| |FEIN |

| |Date & time received |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |Alpine Commercial Tire and Retreaders |

| |91-1538357 |

| |03-14-13 @ 10:30 a.m. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |Wingfoot Commercial Tire Systems |

| | |

| |31-1735402 |

| |3-14-13 @ 11:45 a.m. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |Bridgestone/Firestone |

| |North American Tire; |

| |Bridgestone America Tire Operations |

| |34-0220440 |

| |3-14-13 @ 12:40 p.m. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |Phelps Tire Company |

| |91-0712957 |

| |3-14-13 @ 12:25 p.m. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Bids Sealed &Signed? |All bids were received signed and sealed. |

| | |

|Received all required |Outcome: |

|submittals? |Bidders provided the required submittals with their bid and/or through clarification in accordance with the |

| |Solicitation. No responsive issues were noted. (All responsive). |

| | |

| |Required Submittals: |

| |This checklist identifies the documents to be submitted with each Response. Any Response received without any |

| |one or more of these documents may be rejected as being non-responsive. All submitted documents must be |

| |labeled/have a cover sheet to identify which bid submittal(s) it satisfies. |

| | |

| |Appendix B: Supplemental Information |

| | |

| | |

| |Appendix B: Tread & Powder Coat Samples |

| | |

| | |

| |Appendix B: Copy of the manufacture technical specification |

| | |

| | |

| |Appendix B: Compliance/participation with US EPA Smart Way program. |

| | |

| | |

| |Appendix B: Manufactures published price list |

| | |

| | |

| |Appendix C: Completed Specifications & Technical Requirements Checklist |

| | |

| | |

| |Appendix D: Completed Price Sheets |

| | |

| | |

| |Appendix E: Completed Bidder Profile |

| | |

| | |

| |Authorized Offer and Contract Signature Page (Signed in blue ink) |

| | |

| | |

| |Amendments (if any) with original Signature/date (if required) |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Specification compliance? |Outcome: |

| |Bidders provided the requested Technical Specification data with their bid and/or through clarification AND |

| |their product offerings were acceptable and in accordance with the Solicitation. No responsive issues were |

| |noted. (All responsive). |

| | |

|Price Sheet compliance? |Outcome: |

| |Bidders provided the requested Price Sheet data with their bid and/or through clarification. No responsive |

| |issues were noted (All responsive). |

|Other Responsiveness checks? |See checklist in the Required Submittals section above. |

|Bid Withdrawals |Tire Distribution Services (TDS) - Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire; Bridgestone America Tire |

|[pic] |Operations bidding the manufacture requested their bid be withdrawn from consideration on 04/11/2013. TDS was |

| |announced as the Apparent Successful Bidder for the manufacture Bandag. Their bid was withdrawn and Alpine |

| |Commercial Tire and Retreading, LLC. as the second highest scorer under the manufacturer Bandage was elevated as|

| |the Apparent Successful Bidder. |

|Bid Evaluation—Scoring |

|Evaluation: |AWARD CRITERIA |

|[pic] |EVALUATION AND AWARD |

| |Phase One: Initial Determination of Responsiveness & Responsibility |

| |Responsiveness |

| |Responses will be reviewed initially by the Purchasing Activity to determine on a pass/fail basis compliance |

| |with administrative requirements as specified herein. Evaluation teams will only evaluate Responses meeting this|

| |requirement. |

| |Responses meeting the Initial Determination of Responsiveness will then be reviewed on a pass/fail basis to |

| |determine if the Response meets the Mandatory requirements. Only Responses meeting all Mandatory requirements |

| |will be further evaluated. |

| |The State reserves the right to determine at its sole discretion whether Bidder’s Response to a Mandatory |

| |requirement is sufficient to pass. If, however, more than 1 responding Bidders fail to meet any single Mandatory|

| |item, the Purchasing Activity may cancel the Solicitation and reject all Bids. |

| |Responsibility |

| |Pursuant to RCW 39.26, in determining Bidder responsibility, the following elements shall be given |

| |consideration: |

| |The ability, capacity, and skill of the Bidder to perform the contract or provide the service required; |

| |The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and efficiency of the Bidder; |

| |Whether the Bidder can perform the contract within the time specified; |

| |The quality of performance of previous contracts or services; |

| |The previous and existing compliance by the Bidder with laws relating to the contract or services; |

| |Such other information as may be secured having a bearing on the decision to award the contract: |

| |During Response evaluation, the Purchasing Activity reserves the right to make reasonable inquiry to determine |

| |the responsibility of any Bidder. Requests may include, but are not limited to, financial statements, credit |

| |ratings, references, record of past performance, clarification of Bidder’s offer, and on-site inspection of |

| |Bidder's or Bidder's Subcontractor's facilities. Failure to respond to said request(s) may result in Response |

| |being rejected as non-responsive. |

| |Phase Two: Cost Review and Evaluation |

| |Only Responses that pass the Initial Determination of Responsiveness review will be further evaluated based on |

| |the requirements in this Solicitation and as follows: |

| |Cost Review |

| |Pricing, Retreads, Item 1 (40 Pts) (Appendix D) |

| |Discount off manufacturers published list price. |

| |Pricing, Retreads, Item 2 (20 Pts) (Appendix D) |

| |Discount off manufacturers published list price. |

| |Pricing, Rim Refurbishing (10 Pts) (Appendix D) |

| |Sum of all 3 prices given. |

| |Evaluation: |

| |Non-Costs Submittals (Point Scored) Evaluation |

| |Service capability (30 Pts) (Appendix B, 3 Supplemental Information) |

| |Includes geographical distribution and number of service locations, hours of operation, toll free number(s), |

| |consolidated/centralized billing, recycling program, employee safety program, road side service, and |

| |descriptions of similar contracts held. |

| |Non-cost factors shall receive up to 30 total points. |

| |The Procurement Coordinator may assemble and preside over an evaluation committee. The evaluation committee |

| |will be responsible for reviewing and scoring applicable non-cost Submittals. |

| |If deemed necessary by the Purchasing Activity, committee members may be substituted and/or the evaluation |

| |committee may be disbanded and reconstituted. |

| |The committee or committee member need not award all possible points and will score the non-cost Submittal |

| |consistent with their values. The committee member will primarily focus on the considerations stated in the |

| |Solicitation. |

| |In addition to presiding over the evaluation committee, the Procurement Coordinator may review the non-cost |

| |Submittals, provide input, assemble evaluation aids, or perform other functions helpful to the evaluation |

| |committee. The committee may engage in a free flow of discussion with other committee members and the |

| |Procurement Coordinator prior to, during, and after the evaluation. |

| |Scoring of the submittal may be performed in isolation, together as a group, or a combination of both. Each |

| |committee member will give a particular Submittal a final score. All of the committee members’ scores for that |

| |Submittal will be added together and then divided by the number of members to arrive at an average score for the|

| |submittal. This process will be repeated for other points scored for the non-cost Submittal. |

| |Sample calculation using the following formula: |

| |Five members on the scoring team |

| |Member scores: 30 + 23 + 24 + 28 + 18 = 123 |

| |123 /5 (scoring team) = 24.6 (average) |

| |24.6 average score would move forward in the evaluation process |

| |Costs Submittals (Point Scored) Evaluation |

| |Percentage off list Appendix D Item 1 & 2: |

| |The bidder with the Highest Percentage Discount will receive the maximum points. |

| |Those Bids with a higher cost/lower percentage discounted, will receive a proportionately fewer number of |

| |evaluation points based upon the lowest Bid/highest percentage discounted, using the following formula: |

| |Lower discount divided by a highest discount, multiplied by number of available points equals the discount |

| |factor evaluation points. Points will be rounded to two places to the right of the decimal point using standard|

| |rounding method. |

| |Sample Calculation using Appendix D, Pricing, Retreads, Item 2 (20 Pts), and the following method: Bidder A |

| |Discount = 25% and Bidder B Discount = 15% |

| |.15/ .25 = .6 x 20 (max points available) = 12 (rounded to two places to the right of the decimal point using |

| |standard rounding). |

| |Bidder A is the lowest, so it would be assigned the maximum 20 points. Bidder B would be assigned 12 points |

| |based on the formula above. |

| |Total cost Appendix D Item 3: |

| |The bidder with the lowest Cost will receive the maximum points. |

| |Those Bids with a higher cost/lower percentage discounted, will receive a proportionately fewer number of |

| |evaluation points based upon the lowest Bid/highest percentage discounted, using the following formula: |

| |Lowest Cost divided by a higher Cost, multiplied by number of available points equals the cost factor evaluation|

| |points. Points will be rounded to two places to the right of the decimal point using standard rounding method. |

| |Sample Calculation using Appendix D, Pricing, Retreads, Item 2 (20 Pts), and the following method: Bidder A |

| |Cost = $250.00 and Bidder B Cost = $257.00 |

| |$250 / $257 = .97 x 20 (max points available) = 19.40 (rounded to two places to the right of the decimal point |

| |using standard rounding). |

| |Bidder A is the lowest, so it would be assigned the maximum 20 points. Bidder would be assigned 19.40 points |

| |based on the formula above |

| |Allocation of Points |

| |Allocation of points will be tabulated as follows: |

| | |

| |  |

| |Exercise |

| |Scoring Method |

| |  |

| | |

| |  |

| |Pass/Fail |

| |  |

| |  |

| | |

| |  |

| |Responsiveness |

| |Pass/Fail |

| |  |

| | |

| |  |

| |Responsibility |

| | Pass/Fail |

| |  |

| | |

| |  |

| |Cost Factors |

| |  |

| |  |

| | |

| |  |

| |Item 1. Retreads |

| |40 Points |

| |  |

| | |

| |  |

| |Item 2. Retreads |

| |20 Points |

| |  |

| | |

| |  |

| |Item 3. Rim Refurbishing |

| |10 Points |

| |  |

| | |

| |  |

| |Non-Cost Factors |

| |  |

| |  |

| | |

| |  |

| |Service Capabilities |

| |30 Points |

| |  |

| | |

| |  |

| |  |

| |  |

| |  |

| | |

| |  |

| |Total Points Possible |

| |100 Points |

| |  |

| | |

| |  |

| |  |

| |  |

| |  |

| | |

| |No rejection notice will be sent to unsuccessful Bidders. Bidders whose Bids are determined to be non-responsive|

| |will be rejected and will be notified of the reasons for such rejection. |

| |This evaluation and award strategy will assure efficiency of contract administration and will serve the best |

| |interests of the state. |

|Bid Evaluation—Responsibility |

|EPLS / PCMS Searches: |EPLS Search: I performed a search of the on the US Government System for Award Managment; no problems found. |

| | |

| | |

| |Search for Phelps Tire Company = Negative |

| |Search for Michelin North America = Negative |

| |Search for Wingfoot Commercial Tire Systems = Negative |

| |Search for Tire Distribution Centers = Negative |

| |Search for Bridgestone = Negative |

| |PCMS: No negative information that would give me concern. |

|Past Performance? |The bid language allowed for requesting references during evaluation. All awarded vendors and/or parent |

| |companies are currently awarded vendors on other state contracts and in good standing; therefore references were|

| |not requested from them. |

|Qualifications? |All 3 vendors are licensed and currently conducting business in Washington state. |

|OMWBE Evaluation: |Washington procurement law does not allow for a preference or advantage to minority (MBE) or women (WBE) |

| |businesses. Accordingly, this solicitation did not give any evaluation preferences to this group. |

|CONCLUSION: |I am not aware of any negative information that would give me concern. I believe all the Apparently Successful |

| |Bidders have the wherewithal to meet all terms and conditions. |

|Results & Recommendation |

|Protest Protocol |On 03/28/2013 notice of Apparent Successful Bidders was transmitted to all bidders. A request for debrief was |

| |received from Alpine Commercial Tire and Retreaders, LLC. On 03/29/2013. A debrief was held for Alpine on |

| |04/02/2013 at 10:00 am. Alpine questioned the designation of ASB to TDS. Alpine reviewed the bid tabulation and |

| |concluded that they were the ASB. During the post debrief protest period Scott Bedford of TDS contacted the CS |

| |and mentioned that there may have been a mistake made on the bid submitted and asked about the options they had. |

| |CS informed Scott that they have the option of honoring the prices submitted in the bid or withdrawing their bid |

| |from consideration. Scott informed CS that he will consult with TDS management. On 04/11/2013 Scott of TDS sent |

| |an email requesting TDS’s bid be withdrawn from consideration. On 04/12/2013 CS sent TDS email accepting TDS’s |

| |withdrawal. |

| |Alpine Commercial Tire and Retreaders, LLC. is the only other bidder for the manufacture Bandag. Their prices bid|

| |are very comparable to TDS and is consistent with other prices bid by other manufactures for similar products and|

| |services. Alpines prices bid represent an increased savings over previous contracted prices. Alpine was notified |

| |of TDS’s bid withdrawal and they indicated that they will honor bid pricing submitted. |

| |There are no bidders that are eligible to an award to Alpine Commercial Tire and Retreaders, LLC. and CS believes|

| |an official notification of Alpine as an apparent successful bidder will only delay the successful implementation|

| |of the contract. |

|Savings: |Due to the competitive bid process the best price, for the items specified, at the time solicited, in the area of|

| |geography requested was obtained. Pricing reflects a significant savings over published list prices. |

|Recommendation: |It is my opinion that it is in the best interest of the State to award contract to: |

| |Wingfoot Commercial Tire Systems for Wingfoot Tires (Goodyear) |

| |Alpine Commercial Tire and Retreaders, LLC. for Bandag tires |

| |Phelps Tire for Michelin tires |

|Award Activities |

|Implementation Plan |Solicitation 00113 along with clarification will be incorporated as “the contract”. |

| |Award to be effective 5/1/2013. The effective date of this contract will immediately follow the termination |

| |previous contract 02806. |

|WEBS | Notify bidders of the award via WEBS |

| |Once contract award has been finalized, archive bid in WEBS |

|Communication | Send rejection letter to those bidders to disqualified bidders |

| |Send apparent successful bidder announcement letter |

| |Send Award Announcement letters to all bidders |

| |Email UM a brief award announcement for Bi-Weekly Broadcast |

| |Provided Debriefing to: |

|PCMS | Populate PCMS Info Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Expanded Description Tab |

| |Add Web remark in the PCMS Remarks Tab announcing the award of the contract |

| |Add at least 5-FAQ remarks in the PCMS Remarks Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Internet Tab to include relevant search terms |

| |Complete PCMS Commodities Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Vendors Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Customer Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Fees Tab |

| |Complete PCMS WBE/MBE Percents |

| |Include relevant search terms in the PCMS Internet Tab |

| |(Tip: For best results, ask your contractor(s) to provide search terms) |

|Post Contract to DES Website |Copy the following files into the G:\Shared Info\INTERNET folder: |

| |Copy Contract file (08212c.doc or pdf) |

| |Copy the price sheet (8212p.doc or xls or pdf) |

| |Copy the specification (.doc or xls, or pdf) if applicable |

| |Copy the bid tab (08212t.doc or xls or pdf) |

| |Copy the bid document (04611b.doc or xls, or pdf ) |

| |Copy the bid Amendment (a.doc or pdf ) |

| |Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document (04611f.doc or xls or pdf) |

| |Copy the award memo to file & checklist document (04611m. doc or xls or pdf) |

| | |

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download