HomeMy WebLinkAboutFire Pumper VehicleMEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Haney, City Attorney; Board of Public Works and Safety
FROM: Thomas D. Perkins, Assistant City Attorney W
RE: 2010 Carmel Fire Department pumper bid award
DATE: June 4, 2010
The Carmel Fire Department ( "CFD ") invited bids to purchase a "pumper" truck. There were three
bidders: Seagraves ($954,120), KME ($887,556), and Pierce ($858,000). All three bidders listed
exceptions in their bid documents, but the Seagraves bid was the most responsive to the bid
specifications. A memo is attached as Exihibit A from CFD that goes into greater detail regarding the
relative merits of the bids. This memo addresses only a few of the points, and concludes that it is
appropriate to award the bid to Seagraves.
Prior to writing the bid specifications, Chief Smith empanelled a Pumper Specification Committee
consisting of Maintenance Division Chief Bob Van Voorst, Captain Steve Reeves, Lt. Scott Tierney,
Lt. Scott Osborne, Engineer Brad Sombke, Engineer Andy Wyant, Engineer Eric Frenzel, Engineer
Jeff Grimes, Engineer Mitch Robinson, and Firefighter Mark Voskuhl. That committee assessed the
current CFD equipment and generated specifications that would assure safety, quality of service, and
interoperability. The bid proposal was written with these specifications in mind. The most significant
specifications related to a stainless steel construction process for safety, and compatibility with an
existing tiller truck and pumper. (See Exhibit A.)
Of the bids, the Seagraves bid had the fewest exceptions and was closest to meeting or exceeding the
bid specifications. Furthermore, the Seagraves bid requires less variation within the CFD truck fleet,
which allows for economies in maintenance and training. The KME and Pierce bids had significant
exceptions that reduced the quality of the trucks they would provide, and introduce "hidden" expenses
in maintenance and training.
KME:
The KME bid contained 59 exceptions, including some departures from the bid specifications that
were not clearly stated. This included, but is not limited to:
- Cab doors constructed from aluminum rather than stainless steel;
- Lower grade stainless steel in the cab, body and structural components;
- Significant differences in the suspension and steering assemblies;
- Lower capacity auxiliary air tank;
- Alternator with lower amperage output;
Narrower walkway which can cause difficulty for the pump operator.
This bid did not meet the specifications and would provide an inferior product.
Pierce:
The Pierce bid contained 63 exceptions, only 33 of which were specifically stated. The exceptions
included, but is not limited to:
Lower quality front axle;
Lower capacity auxiliary air tank;
- Entire cab and other structural elements constructed from aluminum rather than stainless steel;
Warranty that was 5 years less than Seagraves';
- Reduced clearance height by 5 inches within crew area;
- Narrower and shorter cab;
- Overall length is 3 inches shorter than specified;
Hose bed height is 20 inches higher, which creates a safety issue;
- Large forward compartment doors 'which may block view of cab, creating safety issue.
This bid did not meet the specifications and would provide an inferior product.
As noted by the Pumper Specification Committee:
The specification committee understands that in these tough economic times that we need to good
stewards of money has been entrusted to us, and spend it in the most responsible manner possible.
Based on our combined years of experience is our belief that spending this additional money
upfront will save the Fire Department and the city time and money in the long run.
(Attached Exhibit A, page 6.)
Under Indiana Code 36 -1 -12 -4(10) the bid awarding agency can make a determination as to which bid is
most responsive to the invitation for bids. This includes whether the bid conforms in all material respects
to the specifications in the invitation. While all bids listed exceptions, it is appropriate to state that the
Seagraves bid is the lowest, most responsive bid.
Pumper Bid Award Letter
Bid Process
The pumper specification committee evaluates the different brands of vehicles, determines the
type of vehicle that will best meet the needs of the Carmel fire Department. The committee
submits the specifications for the vehicle to the Fire Chief for approval. The specifications are
released to the manufactures for a bid proposal. After the bids are opened the specifications
committee evaluates the bids and recommends to the Fire Chief the bidder that they feel is the
most responsive to the specifications. The recommendation is sent city legal for review. The Fire
chief makes a recommendation to the Board of Public Works and Safety.
The Pumper specification committee is made up of the following Carmel Fire Department
personnel. Maintenance Division Chief Bob VanVoorst, Captain Steve Reeves, Lt's Scott
Tierney and Scott Osborne, Engineer's Brad Sombke, Andy Wyant, Eric Frenzel, Jeff Grimes
and Mitch Robinson, FF Mark Voskuhl. The members of this committee have a total of 178
years combined experience with the Carmel Fire Department.
Benefits of a Common Manufacture
The Pumper specification committee along with the Tractor Drawn Aerial truck (Tiller)
specification committee agreed early on in this process that it would be in the best interest of the
Carmel Fire Department and the tax payers for both the Tiller and the Pumper's to be constructed
by the same manufacture for the following reasons
• Ease of operation as cab layouts will be identical between the 2 pumper's and the
tiller
• Mounting of loose equipment in the cabs can be keep consistent between the 2
pumper's and the tiller
• Service and maintenance will be made simpler as the basis cab components on all
3 trucks will be constructed the same way using the same components.
• The necessary inventory of repair parts will be reduced as all the 2 pumper's and
the tiller will use many of the same components.
• Training on the operation and maintenance of all 3 vehicles will be simplified as
many of the operating systems are identical.
• Appearance: A great amount of time was invested to make these vehicles look as
much alike as possible for appearance sake.
Benefits of Stainless steel construction
The pumper specification committee along with the Tractor Drawn Aerial truck (Tiller)
specification committee also agreed that it would be in the best interest of the Carmel Fire
Department and the tax payers for both the Pumper's and the Tiller be constructed using stainless
steel rather than aluminum for the following reasons
• Stainless steel being structurally stronger provides a greater margin of safety of the
occupants in the event of an accident.
• As stainless steel being less prone to corrosion due to dissimilar metals and road salt.
This will greatly reduce the cost and down time that we have experienced with our
1
"EXHIBIT
9i
current fleet that is constructed of aluminum. The Carmel Fire Department has spent a
great deal of time and money addressing the corrosion and paint issues that we currently
experience with our current fleet of trucks that are constructed of aluminum.
• Stainless steel being less prone to corrosion due to dissimilar metals. This will reduce the
issues of corroded and frozen fasteners that we currently experience on our aluminum
body fleet during maintenance and repairs.
• Stainless steel being stronger provides a greater advantage when mounting equipment to
the cab and body. As many of the tools that we mount are heavy mounting into aluminum
requires larger fasteners and are more prone to fasteners being pulled out of the mounting
surface.
Tiller Purchase
The Clay Township Advisory Board has contracted with Hoosier Fire and Seagraves to build a
Tractor Drawn Aerial (Tiller) for the Carmel Fire Department. The construction of this truck is
almost complete and the tiller committee will do the final inspection at factory the week of June
7th The tiller is scheduled for delivery before July 4th.
EVALUATION & EXCEPTIONS
The instructions to bidders called for any bidder taking exception to any item in the specification
to list exceptions in a specific manner. This paragraph is highlighted below.
Any exception or variation in construction, performance, test or items of equipment,
between the specification and the bidder's proposal shall be detailed and submitted along
with the bidder's proposal in bid sequence, citing page and paragraph number of the
specification. Bidder must explain in detail and with full supporting data, how the
proposed deviation meets or exceeds the specifications. Failure to comply with this
requirement will automatically disqualify the bid
Summaries of the Bids Received
SEAGRAVES listed 14 Exceptions / Clarifications
• 5 of these were clarification to differences in warranties listed in 2 different
portions of our specification.
• 1 was a clarification in the performance bond portion of our specification
• 1 Referred to the supply of 2007 emission standard engines that the manufactures
have on hand.
• 1 related to the lowering the height of the rear compartment which will reduce the
height of the hose bed.
• 1 related to proper front tire size necessary for the axle weight
• 1 was change in a component part number
• 1 was a change in the type of pump panel control
• 3 of these were changes in the brand of light used.
All exceptions and clarifications were done in the proper manner per the instructions to
bidders. All exception and clarifications were evaluated and found to be acceptable. Exceptions
in components were found to be of the same quality or superior to those listed in the CFD
specification.
2
KME listed 59 Exceptions / Clarifications
Of the 59 exceptions / clarifications that KME listed the committee felt that the following
differences in basic construction were of a major concern.
• The cab doors and body compartment doors are constructed of aluminum and not
stainless steel as specified.
• A lower grade of stainless steel used in the construction of the cab, body and structural
components
• KME is using a electronic multiplexing system to control all of there lighting. These
types of system are complex and hard to work on and often have to go back to the dealer
for repair or to add on additional light. we had specified a simple switch and relay system
• Major differences in the front and rear axle front and rear suspension and the front
steering assemblies.
• No cab side access storage doors
• The vehicle wheelbase 3.5" longer and body is 2" wider
• The auxiliary air tank capacity is 1200 cubic inches not the 1770 listed in the CFD
specification
• The engine radiator and charged air cooler are not a matched set provided by the same
manufacture. This was specified to prevent future maintenance issues.
• Different manufacture alternator with a lower amperage output. Warning light package
did not follow specification and was not listed as an exception
• Pump panel throttle control and engine display different and not explained
• Compartment door configuration differs - difference not explained
• Lesser quantity of spare air bottle storage tubes
• Cross lay hose compartment width not as specified
• Rear bumper 4" shorter
• Pump panel walkway 3" narrower which causes difficulty in maneuvering for the pump
operator.
• The material the pump module is to be constructed of is not specified
• The right and left pump module access panels are aluminum not stainless steel.
• Numerous other differences in construction and items specified
KME did not follow the exception / clarification portion of the instructions to bidders.
The amount of exception/ clarifications that KME listed made the bid very difficult to evaluate.
Many exceptions were listed as see the KME specification or simply listed the replacement part
being used and did not clarify the differences.
Based upon the evaluation of the bid received from KME the Pumper committee does not
recommend the purchase of the KME Pumper's
3
PIERCE Listed 33 Exceptions / Clarifications
Pierce originally had listed 33 Exceptions/ clarifications after going over their proposal closer we
came up with 63 items that were of concern to the committee
• Older style FL series front axle verses MFS series specified
• The front axle is 21,500# not the 22,800# as specified
• The auxiliary air tank capacity is 1454 cubic inches not the 1770 listed in the
specification. No exception was listed
• Radiator and charge air coolers not the same manufacture as specified
• Fuel cooler air to fuel not water to fuel as specified
• The entire cab is being constructed with aluminum and not stainless steel as
Specified with no details about construction.
• 10 year cab structure warranty Seagraves standard is 15 years
• Cab outer skin is 1/8" alum
• Hump in the floor in the rear crew area reducing floor to ceiling height from 59 3/4" out
side to 54" in side this also reduced the storage area under the center seats
• The cab is 3 1/2" narrower and is 3" shorter from the back wall to the engine tunnel
• The cab access step are 2 1/2 " narrower on the front doors and 12 3/4" narrower on the
rear doors
• The engine tunnel cover is aluminum verses stainless steel
• Interior coverings padded vinyl and not Line -X as specified.
• The cab side storage compartment are smaller, single pan doors 1/4 turn latches no shelf
no lights. no SS scuff plates. No Stainless steel inner door panel.
• Body compartment door material not specified alum or stainless steel?
• Body compartment door sill protectors not specified
• Aluminum verses stainless steel body rub rails
• The over all body length is 152" 3" shorter than the specified 155"
• The hose bed height 20" higher than specified creating a safety issue.
• The size of the Speed lay compartment is not specified.
• Hose bed dividers are 1/8" aluminum not stainless steel as specified.
• Running boards are 1/8" aluminum tread plate not the 3/16" as specified.
• Front bumper gravel pan material 1/8" not 3/16" as specified.
• The top mount pump module constructed using plain steel not stainless steel as specified
• The pump operators walkway is 19 "' wide verses the 23" specified
• Pump panel gauges liquid filled verse dry as specified. have problems with our current
liquid ones leaking and needing replaced
• Pump panel gauges smaller than specified
• No mention of 5" stortz caps on the suction inlets
• Pump panel pump control and the engine gauge system are proprietary to pierce
• Compartment open warning system not as specified. No info center to show which door
is open. Only a single light per side and no audible alarm.
• The roof top AC units are mounted out board on each side with a large boxy covers that
blocks the warning light bar.
• No mention of manual shut off valves for the cab heaters.
• Wiring diagram only model of chassis specific not job specific as requested
4
• No mention of NFPA required webbing to cover bumper, running board and speedlay
hose beds
• The forward compartment doors on each side are a 30" wide single door. This is a huge
safety issue as this blocks the view of the cab to on coming traffic.
• Weight of this door on a single hinge?
• Entire body sub structure is common steel not Stainless
• No reference to the synchronizing of the side warning lights
• The upper and lower dash lay out does not allow the recess mounting of equipment which
requires it to be mounted on the engine tunnel cluttering up the cab area.
• Electronic siren hung from the overhead console not recessed as specified
• The pike poles were not included in the bid as specified but were listed separately in the
loose equipment section
• Dash panel Information system not included in bid, listed as a upgraded
• Differences in the DOT lighting package with insufficient explanation
• Difference in the tire pressure indicating system.
• Rear roll up door different manufacturer than specified in the specification.
• No mention of aluminum tread plate on the rear cab wall
• No mention of pump, pump module and pump piping being painted job color.
• Mud flap reinforcement not mentioned.
Bidding a truck in which the entire cab is being constructed of aluminum allowed Pierce to
substantially lower the cost of their bid.
Based upon the evaluation of the bid received from Pierce the Pumper committee does
not recommend the purchase of the Pierce pumper's
Committee Recommendation
The pumper specification committee thoroughly evaluated each of the bids as it related to our
specification. It is our feeling that even though KME and Pierce attempted to meet our
specification, they still bid the truck that they wanted and not the truck we specified.
Seagraves
KME
Pierce
2 engines $1,104,120.00
Trade in Rescue 45 - $150,000.00
Total $954,120.00
2 engines $1,037,556.00
Trade in Rescue 45 - $150,000.00
Total $887,556.00
2 engines $958,000.00
Trade in Rescue 45 - $100,000.00
Total $858,000.00
5
The committee believes that the Hoosier Fire, Seagraves bid was the most responsive bidder. We
strongly believe that the truck that they are bidding will best meet the needs of Carmel Fire
Department and the citizens of Carmel for the next 20 -25 years.
The specification committee understands that in these tough economic times that we need to
good stewards of money has been entrusted to us, and spend it in the most responsible manner
possible. Based on our combined years of experience is our belief that spending this additional
money upfront will save the Fire Department and the city time and money in the long run.
The Pumper Committees would like to respectfully recommend that the Board of Public work
award the contract to Hoosier Fire and Seagraves.
6