HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.e. Accept Bids/Award Contract - Aerial Platform Fire Truck CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: APRIL 16, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: RECEIVE BIDS/AWARD CONTRACT FOR AGENDA SECTION:
AERIAL PLATFORM OLD BUSINESS
PREPARED BY: SCOTT AKER, FIRE CHIEF AGENDA rpEm # 7 E
ATTACHMENTS: SEE BELOW APPROVED BY:
On February 20, 1996, City Council authorized the fire department to prepare specifications and seek bids for the purchase
of an aerial/platform fire truck. That was done. On Monday, April 8, 1996, bids were opened for the purchase of an
aerial/platform. The vehicle was spec'd out to be a minimum of a 75 foot aerial. Three bids were received. One of the
three companies that submitted a bid did so specifying a 75 foot aerial/platform. The other two bidders specified 100 foot
aerial/platforms.
Two of the bidders, the 75 foot LTI and the 100 foot Pierce met and/or exceeded the fire department's specifications.
Jeff May, Finance Director, will be on hand for the meeting to present information on finance options. With an
expenditure of this large amount and the possibility of delaying payments the lowest cost option is not always the most
favorable economically. All options are being explored and that information should be available for the council meeting.
Surrounding departments were contacted concerning a joint purchase of an aerial truck. Those cities that did respond did
not see that it would be in their best interest to do so at this time. More information on the input that was received from
other cities, and how a joint purchase would affect our insurance rating will also be presented at the council meeting.
The fire department's recommendation would be to accept the bid for the 75 foot aerial/platform from LTI. If additional
information prior to the council meeting, or clarification of any of this information would be necessary, please feel free to
contact me.
The following attachments were requested by various councilmembers and provided to all members:
1. Memo (Exhibit A)
2. Rosemount Bid Specification(Exhibit B)
3. Bids Received(Exhibit Cl, C2, C3)
4. Bid Tabulation Sheet(Exhibit D)
5. Letters/Survey (Exhibit E)
6. Shared Specialty Equipment(Exhibit F)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept bids and award contract for a 75 foot aerial/platform
truck to LTI.
COUNCIL ACTION:
MEMO
EXHIIBIT A
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Scott Aker, Fire Chief
DATE: April 16, 1996
RE: Aerial/Platform Fire Truck Purchase
In addition to the information that is provided in the Executive Summary for Action, and the
information that will be provided at the council meeting, various councilmembers asked for additional
information and those exhibits are attached.
After receiving authorization from City Council to go out for bids the fire department wrote the bid
specifications. Those specifications were mailed to five different suppliers of aerial trucks. In
addition, ads were placed allowing other bidders who we do not normally work with to bid on the truck
also. As was indicated in the Executive Summary, two bidders bid 100 foot aerial trucks. One bidder
submitted a bid for a 75 foot aerial truck. Two of the bidders, the 75 foot LTI and the 100 foot Pierce
met or exceeded the fire department specifications. The 100 foot KME aerial truck did not meet
specifications in all areas. The fire department's original recommendation was for a 75 foot aerial
truck, however, the excellent bid that was received for a 100 foot aerial truck does warrant
examination. The specifications that were sent out are attached and are labeled Exhibit B.
The three bid proposals that were received for a 75 foot aerial/platform from LTI, a 100 foot
aerial/platform from Pierce, and 100 foot from KME, are attached and labeled Cl, C2, C3
respectively. Each of those proposals includes fmancing options that are available by working with
those manufacturers.
A bid tabulation sheet comparing all three bidders is attached and labeled Exhibit D.
At the time the city council authorized the fire department to write specs and seek bids, city council
also requested surrounding cities be surveyed to see if there would be any interest in some type of a
cost sharing on this vehicle. Administrator Burt sent out letters of explanation and sought other cities'
input on this matter. One city (Lakeville) responded in writing. Their letter is attached and labeled
Exhibit E. Three additional cities responded via their fire chiefs to myself. Those were the cities of
Apple Valley, Hastings, and Farmington. Apple Valley indicated that they currently owned such a
device that met their needs and when the city grew to such a size that an additional vehicle would be
necessary it would fall under the category that they consider basic fire equipment that each city should
have and a second vehicle would then be purchased by them for their use. Hastings responded in a
similar manner in that they do currently have an aerial truck that meets their needs. They considered it
basic equipment and hence would not be interested in sharing the equipment but readily expressed the
desire to continue to offer it as an as needed basis via the mutual aid agreement as we would likewise
reciprocate with an aerial truck to their city should it be needed. They also indicated that they saw that
the one vehicle they had should meet their needs for quite some time into the future. The City of
Farmington does not currently have an.aerial truck. They do have one planned in their five-year CIP.
•
Aerial/Platform Fire Truck Purchase
Page 2
They indicated that they are not totally opposed to the idea of sharing a vehicle but from what they
understand of the insurance ratings, many details would need to be worked out and the negatives of
such an arrangement would far outweigh the positives.
Commercial Risk Services, previously ISO, was contacted to find out what type of credit the City of
Rosemount would receive if they jointly owned and operated such a device. All requests for
information and evaluation of a city's capabilities must be done in writing according to their
requirements. We explained to them that we were seeking to jointly own, operate, cost-share, and
share the location of where such a vehicle would be housed and asked for their interpretation of how it
would impact our insurance ratings. If the vehicle were to be shared by two cities such as Rosemount
and Apple Valley for instance, where it could be stored close to the border, readily available to each
city and on an automatic call-out system, there is a possibility of receiving close to 50 percent of the
points that are available. This would require a closer look by Commercial Risk Services in that they
indicated that it would have to be equally accessible to both cities, training would have to be by both
cities, vehicle operation, radio operation, equipment, and the like would also have to be compatible
with both cities. A second scenario where a city such as Rosemount would share a vehicle with a city
such as Farmington that is somewhat removed in proximity, accomplishes very little towards improved
insurance ratings. A scenario housing the aerial truck in Rosemount 75 percent of the time and in
Farmington for 25 percent of the time with the accompanying costs to be divided accordingly, could
possibly put the vehicle in the wrong city at the right time for 100 percent of the calls for which it
would be needed to respond. Because of this, there would be almost no credit given, if any credit
would be given at all for such a scenario. The effective use of the vehicle would be approximately the
same scenario.
At the February 20th presentation to the city council some questions were asked as to what equipment
constituted basic firefighting equipment that all cities typically possess and what type of equipment was
shared specialty equipment. As was indicated at that time, vehicles such as pumpers, aerials, tankers,
and rescue trucks are considered basic equipment that each city owns. That is not to say that each city
owns enough of each of those vehicles to handle every situation. That is the purpose of the mutual aid
agreement to provide for those situations which are definitely above and beyond the normal. The
mutual aid agreement calls for each city to respond to another city's request and that same courtesy
would be reciprocated as needed. The mutual aid agreement also means that those cities could
reciprocate with like equipment. That is to say if Rosemount had a large incident requiring two
additional aerial trucks to be called in to the city, we should be able to reciprocate and respond back to
that city should they have a like incident providing like or similar equipment.
Other equipment that is somewhat specialized and yet needed by individual cities is shared also.
Rosemount, for example, because of its large rural areas and long driveways requiring maneuverability
has a hose truck that supplies hose from the road to the residence. Other cities have an occasional need
for that type of a vehicle and we respond to their city and satisfy that need. Hastings, for example, has
special needs because of their location along the river. They have quite a bit of equipment for cold
water rescue and high level rescue. They would provide that equipment to us via the mutual aid
agreement if we needed it but it is not a typical basic need for the City of Rosemount. A list of those
specialty items that the various cities in the county have is attached and labeled Exhibit F.
•
Aerial/Platform Fire Truck
Page 3
Our existing aerial truck is 22 years old. It was purchased in 1972 at a cost of approximately $69,000.
At the current time it is in need of approximately $30,000 worth of repairs.
We have explored the possibility of trading this vehicle towards the purchase of a new vehicle, and no
one is currently interested. If a new aerial truck were to be purchased, the most viable means for
disposal of our current vehicle would be to seek sealed bids for its purchase. F,or liability reasons we
would need to disclose the problems and the estimated cost to repair those problems. In looking at
those estimated costs to repair and the age of the vehicle, we would probably not expect large bids.
Our last two trucks that we kept in service until they were 20 to 30 years old were sold by this means.
Our Chevrolet pumper was sold for $1 and our Ford pumper was sold for$1,500.
If a new aerial truck was not to be purchased at this time, we would see the current vehicle being
disposed of in the same manner as the consensus of the fire department would be that it would not be
worth repairing. This appeared to be the consensus of the city council on February 20th also.
If there would be any additional information that you would require, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
dw
; " D .-
BID TABULATIONS
PAYMENT OPTIONS 75' LTI 100' PIERCE 100' KNEE
Payment in full at time
of contract $476,445.00 $528,000.00 -
Phased payments $492,500.00 $540,235.00
Lease purchase ---------- $539,340.00
•
Exilt1)%4--. �, L.''
Lu CVitiC
March 14, 1996
Thomas D. Burt, City Administrator
City of Rosemount
2875 - 145th St. W.
P.O. Box 510
Rosemount, MN 55068-0510
Dear Tom:
We appreciate the opportunity P to provide you with feedback regarding your
in the joint purchase of an aerial platform _
inquiry about possible participation m � p p
fire truck. The City of Lakeville explored a similar opportunity with the City
of Apple Valley in 1988. Based on ISO provisions, we concluded then that
neither department would receive full points towards the ISO ratings under joint
ownership, a critical factor in assessing its merits. You might wish to contact
ISO regarding this issue.
We recognize the significant expense involved in acquiring this type of
specialized firefighting equipment. However, Lakeville is expected to add two
fire stations in the future to serve an expanding commercial/industrial base. Our
population is expected to exceed 70,000 by the year 2020 within the 38-square-
mile coverage.
Again, we appreciate your sharing this opportunity with the City of Lakeville
and look forward to continuing the long-standing mutual aid relationship
between our communities.
S'ncerely,
I kk it RECEIVED
'
Robert A. Erickson - MAR 15 199
City Administrator CITY Ur ctuaciviuuiv,
cc: Mayor and City Council
Barry Christensen, Fire Chief
City of Lakeville
20195 Holyoke Avenue • P.O. Box 957 • Lakeville,MN 55044-0957 • (612) 469-4431 • Fax 469-3815
Recycled paper,soy ink
ExhibIt ♦♦ II.
} I 1
3 ; g 4 i y 3
s
I CITIES I ,
EQUIPMENT 3 3 s _
or IA.V. I Burn.IEgn. 6 Nast.I Rsmti Farm.IM.H. Rand.;I.G.H. Lake.I S.S.P.;W.S.P
._ . ... ..�...,...g....�.... ...9,..._..._..
SERVICE 3
3 3
m. m. . . . . . ._. ._. m. . . m. . 3 ._. . .I I I
a ; m . M . a. . ; ma _ .;. m m . . _ . .
Haz-Mat I X I X 3 3 X
Dive Team X , 3 X I X
High Level Rescue X 3 3 _ 3
I.Command Van = 3 '. X _ _ X = 3
}
Mobile SCBA Air $ s X X 3 X = 3
Boat 3 X X ; 4 3 , -j.....................�..................._.
3 + 3 X i X
Jet-Ski 3
I x ; I
Mobile Lighting ; X I I
Chemical Truck X
3 3 3 3 ""'"' } 3
Hose Truck 3 3 3 3 3 X _ 3
Snowmobile �._. . ... . . . m. .. . .��. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�. . . } X X 3 3 .�._mm.r._._ _�._._._._._._
ATV
_ _ 3
a _ _ _
Cold Water Resc 3 3 '
_. . . . . ._ n. . . b �. . . ,. . . . . . �. . . . . . 3. . �. . . . $ . . . �. �. . . . . a . . . .
gi ; i
} 3 3 I 3 I ' 3 3 3 ;
Paramedics 3 X I 3 X 1 I 3 I
Ambulance X , X = _ y X X
;
i i 3 3 i ; 3
3 ' 4
d
} ; 3 } ! I ; ' 3 ' III
3 4 4 3 I ; 3 I 3 3