Memo to File
[Pages:1]
|Contract# 03510 |Lubricants for Washington State Ferries |Kirsten Taylor |
|Contract Type: New Replacement WSCA Enterprise General Use Restricted to:_____________ |
|Contract Duration: Initial Term: _2 years months Maximum life: 8 Years & Date: July 31, 2018 |
|Estimated Term Worth: $2,000,000 Estimated Annual Worth: _$1,000,000_____ |
|Number of: Bidders notified: 69 Bids received: 1 Bids Rejected: 0 |
| WEBS was used to notify bidders. What commodity Codes were used? ___9150 Oils and Greases: Cutting, Lubricating, and Hydraulic__ |
|% MWBE Award: WBE% __0_ MBE%__0__ Self Identified WBE% __0___ Self Identified MBE% ___0__ |
|Executive Summary: |This is a rebid of a Department of Transportation (DOT) critical contract for various lubricants for Washington State Ferries (WSF). |
|Bid Development |
|Stakeholder work: |I worked closely with DOT headquarters and staff at (WSF), mainly working with Gary Smith and Paul Brodeur. |
|Market Research: |Had conversations with current vendor and a competing vendor to gain knowledge of the commodity. |
|EPP Strategy: |This contract has no re-refined product, and does not use recycled or cleaned barrels because there could still be material in the |
| |barrel that could cause a situation that may contribute to a life/safety issue on the water. |
|Diversity Strategy: |I worked with Gerald Ballard of OMWBE. On 4/15/10 I sent him the draft solicitation for his review. He replied on 4/26/10 asking to|
| |incorporate MWBE language, and I responded that the language was in the solicitation, in the embedded file titled “Part II”. I asked|
| |him to look at it to make sure it fit his needs, and let him know that I don’t have permission to change anything in Part II, so if |
| |he has any suggestions they will need to be run past my supervisor. |
| | |
| |On 5/4/10, I followed up with Gerald to see if he’d had a chance to review Part II yet. He responded the next day still encouraging |
| |moving the MWBE language to Part I, and asking to add the following language: |
| |Prior to performance, Awarded Bidder who is a MWBE or intends to use MWBE Subcontractors is encouraged to identify the participating |
| |firm(s) to OSP and OMWBE. See Section???? of the Model Contract. |
| |Certified Minority and /or Women Business Enterprise: |
| |Minority Business Enterprise (MBE), Women Business Enterprise (WBE), Minority Women Business Enterprise (MWBE) or a Combination |
| |Business Enterprise (CBE) as set forth in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapters 326-02 and 326-20. |
| |To be considered an eligible owner, you must be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and a member of one of the following |
| |groups: |
| |Woman |
| |Black – origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa |
| |Hispanic – Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of |
| |race |
| |American Indian/Alaskan Native – origins in any of the original peoples of North America |
| |Asian American – origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent or the Pacific |
| |Islands |
| |Eligible owner must own at least 51% of the business. |
| |Eligible owner must control the firm’s managerial and day-to-day operations. |
| |Firm must be an independent business, organized for profit, and legally licensed to do business in Washington. |
| |Firm must be a small business as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards and as applicable to the |
| |business’ primary business activities. |
| |Firm must perform a “Commercially Useful Function”. A “commercially useful function” is a real and actual service that is central and|
| |necessary to complete the product or service |
| | |
| |There wasn’t enough time to get all this language properly reviewed and approved, so I elected to bring the request to the Supplier |
| |Diversity group that I belong to for consideration. |
| | |
| |Gerald was invited to the pre-bid conference, but declined to attend. |
| | |
| |Subcontracting with OMWBE certified firms was encouraged. |
| Peer Review |Mark Gaffney, Bob Paulson, Michael Maverick. |
| Management Fee? |This contract is paid through DOT’s PAF. |
|Bid Process |
|TAB A |The pre-bid was held at WSF headquarters in Seattle on 6/16/10. I coordinated getting a laptop and brought the IFB on a flashdrive |
| |so I could project it, we could view it together, and I could easily find any sections that may be in question. |
|Pre-Bid Conference: | |
|Date: 6/16/10 |In attendance (7 people): |
|[pic] |GA – Kirsten Taylor (Contracts Specialist) |
| |DOT – Paul Brodeur (WSF Director), Bob Estes (WSF Purchasing Agent) |
| |ConocoPhillips – Denny Hammons (Marketer, Sales Rep) |
| |Small & Son’s Oil – Rick Walker (Vice President) |
| |Chevron Lubricants – Marc Graff (Lubricants Business Manager) |
| |Puget Sound Petroleum – Marc Shannon (Lubricants & Fuel Sales Rep) |
| | |
| |Prior to Bidders arriving, Paul Brodeur of WSF and I discussed a few minor issues that we felt needed clarification. One of them was|
| |related to finding the cost of bulk delivery, another was consolidating the regulatory requirements (both resulted in a bid |
| |amendment). |
| | |
| |Both of these issues were brought to the Bidders in attendance, and they were told that unless and until they see a bid amendment, |
| |the discussion is for informational purposes only. Bidders were also cautioned not to rely on any bid amendments to find all |
| |regulatory requirements in the IFB or to rely on the IFB and amendments to cover all regulatory requirements. |
| | |
| |Because Part II is an embedded document and potentially easy to miss, Bidders were asked if they had reviewed Part II of the IFB. |
| |All Bidders responded that they had. |
| | |
| |There were a couple of issues raised that were Ferries-specific (i.e. Will delivery continue to be primarily from 10pm-2am?). |
| |Virtually no questions were asked about the IFB or the process. |
| | |
| |The overall tone was cooperative, professional, and respectful. |
|TAB B |Amendment One (1): |
| |Updated and consolidated regulatory requirements. Also provided a mechanism to capture pass/fail pricing for stand-by spill |
|Amendment One: |response. |
|Date: June 18, 2010 | |
|[pic] |Amendment Two (2): |
|Amendment Two: |Corrected the pass/fail point spread for one of the evaluated test criteria. |
|Date: June 25, 2010 | |
|[pic] | |
|Bid Evaluation—Responsiveness |
|Bid Opening: |No late Bids were received, but a number of vendors called just before, and up to weeks after the Bid Opening to inquire about |
|Date: June 29, 2010 |bidding. A couple of vendors who were not in WEBS even asked if we could extend the Bid Opening Date to accommodate them. It was |
| |explained to them that we cannot extend the Bid Opening Date to accommodate potential Bidders, and that we need a contract in place |
| |by a certain date. These Bidders were directed to WEBS to create a profile for future solicitations. |
|Bids Sealed & Signed? |The one Bid was received sealed and signed. |
|Received all required submittals?|A variety of submittals were required. |
| |Letters of Recognition and Acceptance of Product from General Motors Electro-Motive Division and General Electric were required |
| |because Ferry engines are made by these two manufacturers, and the product offered must be compatible with these engines. |
| |Specifications and Technical Requirements / Additional Independent Testing were required to ensure that the product meets |
| |specifications. |
| |Price Sheets were required in order to evaluate pricing. |
| |A Bidder Profile was required to identify the Bidder and certain non-evaluated/cost factors (Purchasing Card acceptance, etc.). |
| |References were required to validate a Bidder’s performance. |
| |Contract Execution – Bidder’s Authorized Offer was required as the signature page in the event of contracting with the Bidder. |
| |Participating Dealers/Distributors were required in order to help determine if the Bidder has the capacity to perform. |
|TAB C |The IFB was created to make specification compliance verification as simple as possible with as many pass/fail components as |
| |possible, and where not possible, WSF provided acceptable variances and percentages were applied to them. |
|Specification compliance? | |
|[pic] |There was one instance where WSF had outdated performance information. We requested a Total Base Number (TBN) of 9 (+-10%), and the |
| |Bidder came in at 2.12. When contacted for clarification, the Bidder provided an email from a Product Development Engineer for the |
| |company that makes the oil additive explaining how lower sulfate fuels do not require as high a TBN as had historically been |
| |required. Paul Brodeur reviewed this explanation and concurred that we had provided outdated performance information. |
| | |
| |The outcome was that the vast majority our specifications were created correctly and the evaluation mechanism made it easy to |
| |evaluate the response. |
|Price Sheet compliance? |Yes |
|Other Responsiveness checks? |There were the regular responsiveness checks (Bidder Profile, returning any amendments deemed required, etc.). There were a few |
| |other requirements that helped determine responsiveness: |
| |Bidder providing literature for WSF-identified product (One piece of literature was for an incorrect product, Bidder provided the |
| |correct piece of literature on request.). |
| |Identifying how much Bright Stock is in the product. |
| |Providing a dollar value for spill response drills (not evaluated because it’s a pass-through cost). |
| |Providing the name of a lubricant engineer who will work with WSF on issues. |
| |Providing the names/addresses of dealers/distributors. |
|Bid Evaluation—Responsibility |
|TAB D |Since the Bidder was the previous contractor for WSF (and listed WSF as a reference), Paul Brodeur was asked if he would authorize |
| |waiving the reference check requirement. Paul responded in the affirmative. |
|Past Performance? | |
|[pic] | |
|Bid Evaluation—Scoring |
|TAB E |I created a worksheet to track the submittals, another worksheet to evaluate the specifications, and yet another worksheet to |
| |evaluate pricing. |
|Evaluation: | |
|[pic] | |
|Results & Recommendation |
|TAB F |Not all of the products on the last contract carried over to this one, but I was able to take 16 products and price-compare them. |
| |What I found was that savings for the first year of the contract could reach $50,735, and for the first term (two years) could reach |
|Savings: |$101,471. The savings report is attached. |
|[pic] | |
| |The vendor also indicated that this pricing is 36% lower than the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. |
|TAB G |This contract provides up to a 36% savings from the previous contract, and the vendor has a history of working well with the |
| |customer. Recommendation is to award this contract to Chevron Products Company for a two year initial term (eight year maximum) with|
|Recommendation: |pricing firm and fixed for 180 days (6 months). Pricing will be reviewed every six months on a pass-through basis against the |
|[pic] |identified Producer Price Index (PPI). If the PPI moves less than 3% in either direction, pricing will remain the same for the next |
| |six months. |
|Award Activities |
|WEBS | Notify bidders of the award via WEBS |
|Communication | Email UM a brief award announcement for Bi-Weekly Broadcast |
|PCMS | Populate PCMS Info Tab |
| |Complete PCMS Expanded Description Tab |
| |Add Web remark in the PCMS Remarks Tab announcing the award of the contract |
| |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 |
|TAB H |Copy the following files into the G:\Shared Info\INTERNET folder: |
| |Copy Contract file (#####c.doc) |
|Post Contract to GA Website |[pic] |
| |Copy the price sheet (#####p.doc or xls) |
| |[pic] |
| |Copy the bid tab (#####t.doc or xls) |
| |[pic] |
| |Copy the bid document (#####b.doc) |
| |[pic] |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- how to file your own taxes
- how to file a garnishment
- how to file complaint against attorney
- how to file wage garnishment
- sample internal memo to staff
- memo to employees sample
- motivational memo to employees
- policy change memo to employees
- sample memo to staff employees
- memo to employees announcing benefit
- memo to employee
- lunch break memo to employees