CR 98-202 Award of Bid Automated Refuse Truck
. 1 Y
\ 0
G '"
December 2, 1998 ~ Council Report: 98-202
.y '"
. o P K \ ""
AWARD OF BID FOR AUTOMATED REFUSE TRUCK
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: "Motion awarding the cab and chassis portion of the bid
to R.D,O Truck Center for the purchase ofa model WX42 Volvo cab and chassis at a cost of$72.780."
"Motion awarding the packer portion of the bid to McOueen Equipment for the purchase of one Rapid Rail 22
yard packer at a cost of $70.606_"
Overview.
The bid opening for one Automated Refuse Truck was held at Hopkins City Hall on November 30, 1998. The
truck specification allowed for three different option bids. The first option was for a bid on only the cab and
chassis portion of the vehicle. The second option was for a bid on only the automated packer potion of the
vehicle. The third option was for a bid on a complete unit, cab, chassis and packer. The amount budgeted in
1999 for purchase was $127,700
Bids were received from R.D.O. truck center and Allstate Peterbilt for the cab and chassis portion of the bid.
.Only one bid was received from McQueen Equipment for the packer portion of the bid. We did not receive any
bids for a complete unit.
Staff is recommending purchase of the Volvo cab and chassis and the Rapid Rail refuse packer. This decision is
based on compliance to specifications, past experience and overall best interest and long term costs.
Primary Issues to Consider
. Is the award to R_D_a. Truck Center for the Volvo cab and chassis in the best interest of the city?
. Is the award to McQueen Equipment for the rapid Rail packer in the best interest of the city?
. Why is the overall cost above budgeted amount?
Supporting Documents
. Detailed background
. CompaF~tive sale of packer body
. Speciyc' ,io co arisons
'. ~'~.' _L~
Kerber BldglEquipment Services Superintendent
.
Detailed Background
. Currently the Sanitation division of Public Works uses three refuse trucks for the collection of refuse and yard
waste for the city. Two of the trucks, a 1985 Mack with a Rapid Rail automated loader, and a 1994 Peterbilt
with a Rapid Rail automated loader, are used for the pick up of the residential refuse containers. A third truck, a
1977 Ford with a rear loading refuse packer, is currently used for yard waste collection, bulk pick up, and as a
backup for the automated trucks. On March 1, 1993 we changed from using two trucks/three days per week/8
hours per day, to one-truck! four days per week/I 0 hours per day. This enabled us to utilize one truck and retain
the other for a back up. The current schedule is to replace the front line truck every 5 years and rotate the old
truck as a backup for a lO-year period. For maintenance and reliability reasons it is necessary to replace the
front line truck every five years. The truck that is being replaced is a 1985 Mack with 115,000 miles on it.
Because of the high maintenance for this fully automated truck a good backup unit is essential to assure that the
city's refuse is picked up on schedule.
Analysis of Issues
. Is the award to R.D.D. Truck Center for the Volvo cab and chassis in the best interest of the city?
Public works staff has reviewed the bids and inspected the equipment in detail. Both the cab and chassis bid
by RD.O. Truck Center and Allstate Peterbuilt are very reliable and proven pieces of equipment. The bid
award to RD. O. Truck Center for the Volvo Model WX42 was based on adherence to specifications,
lowest overall cost, and solicited customer feedback.
. Is the award to McQueen Equipment for the Rapid Rail refuse packer in the best interest of the
. city.
Public Works staff has reviewed the bid and decided to award the bid to McQueen Equipment
based on adherence to specification, and past equipment experience. Because of the specialized
type of equipment that the city utilizes for its refuse pickup we only received one bid. To assure
that the cost of the refuse packer is in line with the market value we requested to see what other
end users paid for the same type of packer unit. After reviewing these amounts city staff feels
the bid amount represents a fair market price for the unit bid.
. Why is the cost above budgeted amount?
The cost for the completed Refuse Packer is $143.386 the amount budgeted in the 1999 Equipment
Replacement Plan for replacement of this truck is $127.700. The $15.686 difference between the budgeted
amount and the actual cost can be attributed to several factors. Taking the cost ofthe complete unit
purchased in 1994 and factoring in a 4% increase each year arrived at the $127.700 amount. However the
cost of this type of equipment has been increasing at a higher percentage than our projected amount. Also
the completed unit that was specified has several added features that were not included on the similar unit
purchased in 1994. The total cost of these added features came to over $8.000 of the bid amount. The
features that were added include an extra axle mounted behind the truck to prevent the truck from exceeded
the legal weight limit for this single axle truck. Another feature is a 42 point automated lube system, this
.
~
system lubes the packer and arm system as the truck is being used. We installed this system on our existing
. refuse truck and it has paid for itself many times over. Other additions like power windows will allow the
operator to talk to a resident on the opposite side of the truck without having the resident walk in front of the
truck to relay a message. I have included an invoice from the refuse body vendor for a comparable unit sold
to a local refuse hauler. The difference between the cities speced unit and the unit sold to W.T.I. Waste is
the city unit does not have a camera system (-$1000.00). However the specifications for the unit being
supplied to the city include a already mentioned rear lift kit (+$6.500), a rear of truck light kit (+$900.00), a
42 point lube system verses a 32 point system (+$600.00). And a spill shield for the rear lift axle to prevent
garbage from becoming wedge in the lift axle when dumping (+$450.00). When you add in the added
features of the city specified Refuse Packer verses the invoiced Refuse Packer to W.T.I. Waste, the costs are
within the cost of a comparable unit sold to another vendor.
.
.
. ...- -- - -