Memo to File



|00314 |Cutting Edges – Snow Plows & Graders |Nathan Hayes |

|Contract Type: New Replacement WSCA Enterprise General Use Restricted to:_____________ |

|Contract Duration: Initial Term: 1 years months Maximum life: 8 Years or 6/1/2022 |

|Estimated Term Worth: $3,200,000.00 Estimated Annual Worth: $400,000.00 |

| WEBS was used to notify bidders Number of: Bidders notified:259 Bids received: 7 Bids Rejected: 0 |

|List the WEBS (not PCMS) commodity Codes were used? 760-06, Blades and Edges, Dozer, Grader, Scraper, Snow Plow |

|% DVA: __3____ MWBE Goal: __3____ % MWBE Award: WBE% ___0__ MBE%__0___ |

| |

|Self Identified WBE% ___1___ Self Identified MBE% __0___ |

|Executive Summary: |The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has a need for a replacement Contract for Cutting Edges - Snow Plows & Graders |

| |due to the past performance issues of Chemung Supply Corp. |

|Bid Development |

|Stakeholder work |WSDOT provided a copy of their specifications electronically. WSDOT and various Washington state counties taken collectively, each |

| |share approximately 50% of contract usage. Officials at Ferry, Douglas and Snohomish counties were contacted by the CS via telephone |

|Customer Forum? |and input solicited. No additional input was received. As multiple agencies and political subdivisions use this Contract, the |

|Vendor Forum? |specifications used by WSDOT must work for these other customers. |

|Market Research: |The prior solicitation (01011) was reviewed and an internet search performed to determine if there are other vendors who can supply |

| |these products. It turns out there are numerous vendors are available to sell products under this Contract. |

|Bid Development: |The goal of this solicitation was to create a replacement statewide Contract for the as needed purchase of Cutting Edges - Snow Plows|

| |& Graders. The Contract will be awarded with an initial term of 1 year with the option to extend additional one year terms up to a |

| |total of 8 years. During the solicitation, it came the attention of the CS that WSCA-NASPO is currently soliciting bids for the same|

| |products as the WA solicitation. After consultation with Michael Maverick, Christine Warnock and Steve Jenkins (WSDOT) it was |

| |determined to proceed with the WA solicitation, keep the initial term of any contract resulting from it to one year, and take a |

| |“wait-and-see” approach on the results of the WSCA-NASPO solicitation. In order to avoid WSDOT being placed in a position of peril |

| |in terms of product availability, the Contract would be awarded to the bidder(s) who were found to be the lowest responsive and |

| |responsible for each category, per manufacturer. There are three (5) categories to award. Bidders did not have to bid on every |

| |category. Award language also included the right to award by line item, or aggregate total based on Responses received. |

| Peer Review |Contract Specialists, Melanie Williams and Corinna Cooper (DES), and Steve Jenkins (WSDOT) reviewed the document and recommended its |

| |release. The Contract’s value is over the CS’s signature authority so Unit Manager signature is required. Michael Maverick, Unit |

| |Manager, reviewed the request and recommended its release 4/9/2014. |

| Management Fee? |The standard 0.74% Management Fee will be imposed on this Contract. |

|Bid Process |

|Pre-Bid Conference: |The optional Pre-bid Conference was held on for 4/29/2014, at 10:00am. Three vendors and three representative so WSDOTattended the |

|Date: 4/29/2014 |pre-bid meeting. |

|Amendment(s): |Five solicitation amendments were issued. Amendment 1 was issued on 4/21/2011, and made a few changes as a result of the pre-bid |

|Date: 4/21/2011 |meeting. The solicitation document was revised and replaced in its entirety to make it easier for the bidder to respond to. Bidders |

| |were required to submit the Amendment. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|4/27/2011 | |

| | |

|[pic] |Amendment 2 was issued on 4/27/2011, to add some additional line items to the price pages. A vendor felt those products should be on |

| |the Contract because they are on the current Contract, and WSDOT agreed they should be added. Appendix D – Price Worksheets were |

| |revised and replaced in its entirety. Bidders were required to submit the Amendment. |

|Bid Evaluation—Responsiveness |

|Bid Opening: |Six (6) bids were received at bid opening. All six (6) were received on time. |

|Date: 5/3/2011 at 2:00pm PST | |

|Bids Sealed & Signed? |All of the bid responses were sealed and signed. |

|Received all required submittals?|NC Machinery (Bidder 6) did not supply Appendix C – Technical Requirements, Appendix E – Bidder profile and Amendment 1. NC Machinery|

| |was rejected without further review. |

| | |

| |Chemung Supply Corporation (Bidder 1) did not supply descriptive literature, warranty information or Amendment 2. Descriptive |

| |literature was requested, if available, and warranty information was requested. Per Appendix A, Section 1.6, Bidder Responsiveness, |

| |it states, “The Purchasing Activity reserves the right to consider the actual level of Bidder’s compliance with the requirements |

| |specified in this Solicitation and to waive informalities in a Response.” The CS determined these requirements were an informality |

| |and could be waived, however the CS did request the vendor to provide the documents for review purposes. |

| |Chemung Supply Corporation also did not supply Amendment 2 which replaced the pricing pages due to line items addition. The line |

| |items that were added in Amendment 2 received only one (1) response out of the six (6) who bid. It turns out the vendor who requested|

| |the addition is the only one who bid the items; therefore, these items were not evaluated so apples to apples comparison could be |

| |made. Since the items were not evaluated, Amendment 2 is technically not applicable, so the requirement to include it in the vendor’s|

| |response is waived per Appendix A, Section 1.6, Bidder Responsiveness. Chemung Supply Corporation was determined to responsive, and |

| |therefore Chemung Supply moved on to the responsibility check. |

| | |

| |Pape Machinery did not include an electronic copy, but this requirement was waived per Appendix A, Section 1.6, Bidder |

| |Responsiveness, therefore Pape Machinery moved on to the responsibility check. |

| | |

| |All other bidders supplied the required submittals. |

|Specification compliance? |Joe Stinton, WSDOT, was sent the specifications for review on 5/6/2011. Joe responded on 5/10/2011 that all five (5) responses met |

| |the required specifications. |

|Price Sheet compliance? |All vendors supplied the correct price sheets except for Chemung Supply Corporation who did not supply Amendment 2 which updated the |

| |price sheets (this requirement was waived). |

| | |

| | |

| |Amendment 2 replaced the pricing pages due to a line item addition. The line items that were added in Amendment 2 received only one |

| |(1) response out of the five (5) who were having pricing evaluated. It turns out the vendor who requested the addition (and WSDOT |

| |agreed to add) is the only one who bid the items. Therefore, the CS determined that these items should not be evaluated so apples to |

| |apples comparison could be made. |

| | |

| |There are two (2) items in Category 2 that only received one response, Special Through Hardened Grader Cutting Edges - Double Bevel |

| |Flat Cutting Edges ½ inch thick by 6 inches wide and Single Bevel Flat Cutting Edges ½ inch thick x 8 inches wide. These two items |

| |will be removed from the evaluation because there are no prices to compare it to. |

| | |

| |In addition, line item Standard Grader Cutting Edges Single Bevel Flat Cutting Edges ½ inch thick x 8 inches wide received two (2) |

| |responses. After the review, it was determined that Valk Manufacturing was the lowest responsive bidder for this line item. Valk |

| |Manufacturing was contacted on 5/16/2011 letting them know they looked to the Apparent Successful Bidder (ASB) for this line item. |

| |Valk Manufacturing replied via email on 5/16/2011 they wished to be removed for this line item. There was only one bidder remaining |

| |and it was determined that this line would not be included in the evaluation because there was no longer a price comparison, once |

| |Valk Manufacturing retracted their bid response on this line. |

| | |

| |The following line items were removed from the evaluation portion of the Contract because there were no price comparison points: |

| |CAT 1 |

|[pic] |7/8'' Thick Edge With Carbon Insert Density of 13.9 to 14.6 and a Hardness of 86.8 to 89.2 based on the RC “A” scale. |

| | |

| |CAT 1 |

| |7/8 X 5 Isolated Car bite Insert, TC Snow Plow blade |

| | |

| |CAT 2 |

| |Standard Grader Cutting Edges, Single Bevel Flat Cutting Edges ½ inch thick x 8 inches wide |

| | |

| |CAT 2 |

| |Special Through Hardened Grader Cutting Edges, Double Bevel Flat Cutting Edges ½ inch thick c 6 inches wide |

| | |

| |CAT 2 |

| |Special Through Hardened Grader Cutting Edges, Single Bevel Flat Cutting Edges ½ inch thick x 8 inches wide |

| | |

| |CAT 3 |

| |3 ft - #KMT-TUCA-SX-36   |

| | |

| |CAT 3 |

| |4 ft - #KMT-TUCA-SX-36   |

| | |

| |CAT 3 |

| |3 ft - #GK-5   |

| | |

| |CAT 3 |

| |4 ft - #GK-5   |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |Chemung Supply Corporation has been determined to be the lowest responsive, responsible for Category 1. Rebuilding and Hardfacing, |

| |Inc. has been determined to be the lowest responsive, responsible for Category 2. Valk Manufacturing has been determined to be lowest|

| |responsive, responsible vendor for Category 3. None of these vendors have Reciprocity preferences or penalties. |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Other Responsiveness checks? |Chemung Supply Corporation (Bidder 1) did not supply descriptive literature, or warranty information. Descriptive literature was |

| |requested, if available, and warranty information was requested. Chemung supplied the information on 5/12/2011. |

|[pic] | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Bid Evaluation—Responsibility |

|Past Performance? |Rebuilding and Hardfacing, Inc. and Valk Manufacturing were previously on the Cutting Edges Contract, and both vendors are in good |

| |standing with the State and WSDOT. |

| | |

| |Chemung Supply Corporation has never been a vendor on a WA State Contract, so references were checked and additional company history |

| |was researched. All three references provided by Chemung Supply Corporation provided positive feedback and a willingness to do |

| |business again in the future. Chemung Supply Corporation has been in business since 1932 and has annual revenue of $10 to $20 |

| |million. With reference checks and a long standing history it appears Chemung supply is very responsible. |

|Qualifications? |No additional qualifications checks were done, but all of the lowest responsive, responsible bidders meet the required |

| |qualifications. |

| | |

|Bid Evaluation |

|Evaluation: |The Contract would be awarded to the bidder(s) who were found to be the lowest responsive and responsible for each category. There |

| |are three (3) categories to award. Bidders did not have to bid on every category. Award language also included the right to award by |

|[pic] |line item, or aggregate total based on Responses received. |

| |Amendment 2 replaced the pricing pages due to line item addition. The line items that were added in Amendment 2 received only one (1)|

| |response out of the five (5) who were having pricing evaluated. No vendors, except the one who requested the change, bid on the added|

| |items in Amendment 2. For purposes of evaluation, those items have been removed so apples to apples comparison could be made. Also, |

| |there were three (3) items in Category 2 that only received one response. These three items will be removed from the evaluation |

| |because there are no prices to compare it to. |

| | |

| |Chemung Supply Corporation had the lowest total cost for Category 1, so they will be awarded Category 1 |

| |Rebuilding & Hardfacing Inc. had the lowest total cost for Category 2 based on an aggregate total, so they will be awarded Category |

| |2. |

| |Valk Manufacturing had the lowest total cost for Category 3, so they will be the awarded Category 3. |

|Results & Recommendation |

|Savings: |As compared to the previous Contract (10504), the total savings for Category 1 is $106,726.50 or a 24.5%. For Category 2, a true cost|

| |comparison could not be completed because there were additional products added to this Category, however, it appears the new Contract|

| |will have overall higher prices under this Category. Research indicates that pricing for steel has increased, so a higher overall |

| |cost is justified. |

| |For Category 3, a true cost comparison could not be completed because there were additional products added to this Category, however,|

| |it appears the new Contract will have overall slightly higher pricing under this Category. Research indicates that pricing for rubber|

| |has increased so a higher overall cost is justified. |

|Recommendation: |It is in the States interest to move forward and make an award on Contract 01011. An overall cost savings will be seen because of the|

| |overall decrease in pricing in Category 1.This will have significant saving for State Agencies and other political subdivisions |

| |during these financial times. |

| |Chemung Supply Corporation had the lowest total cost for Category 1, so they should be awarded Category 1. Rebuilding & Hardfacing |

| |Inc. had the lowest total cost for Category 2, based on an aggregate total, so Rebuilding & Hardfacing Inc should be awarded Category|

| |2. Valk Manufacturing had the lowest total cost for Category 3, so they should be awarded Category 3. |

|Award Activities |

|Implementation Plan | |

|WEBS | Notify bidders of the award via 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 Kerry Bustetter a brief award announcement for Bi-Weekly Broadcast |

|Contract | Model Contract updated to reflect Bid Amendment language |

|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 |

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

| |Complete PCMS Commodities Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Vendors Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Customer Tab |

| |Complete PCMS Fees Tab |

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

| |Copy Contract file (01011c.doc) |

| |Copy the price sheet (01011p.doc or xls) |

| |Copy the specification (01011s.pdf) if applicable |

| |Copy the bid tab (01011t.doc or xls) |

| |Copy the bid document (01011b.doc) |

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download