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.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- memo to file
- section 5b washington state
- care assessor s manual washington state
- export voucher guidelines washington state department of
- copy of z 0020 washington state courts washington courts
- memo to file washington
- personal and industrial property washington state
- nursing homes assisted living facilities washington
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