CR 94-211 Refuse Container Bid Award
"\ y
\ 0
(, "
. '"
o \\
October 24, 1994 P K \ Council Report: 94-211
REFUSE CONTAINER BID AWARD
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: IIMotion adopting
Resolution 94-104 Award of bid for 30. 60 and 90 qallon residential refuse
containers to Schaefer Systems International."
Overview.
The bid opening for residential refuse containers was held at the City Hall
Council chambers on July 21, 1994. Seven bids were received and the bid of
Schaefer Systems International was the low bid. Schaefer's bid was $2,479
less than the next highest bidder.
After the bids were opened, staff began reviewing the qualifications and
products of the low bidder. The review process took much longer than
anticipated due to an alternative that was presented to the city by the low
bidder. The alternative consisted of furnishing a different 30 gallon
4Itcontainer than what was included in the bid. Staff was interested in the
alternative since the alternate container was offered at the same bid
price, and as such worked with low bidder on the details.
primary Issues to consider.
0 Does the Schaefer container meet specifications?
0 What containers were included in Schaefer's bid?
0 What alternative was offered by Schaefer?
0 Should the alternative be accepted?
0 Is Schaefer a reputable firm to work with?
0 How and when will delivery take place?
0 What is the total cost and how will these containers be funded?
supDortinq Information.
0 Detailed Background
0 Analysis of Issues
0 Bid tabulation
0 October 24, 1994 letter from Schaefer
0 Resolution 94-104
. -qz:;
LEre Gus ta so
.
Council Report: 94-211
Page 2
4ItDetailed Backqround
The city began looking into volume based refuse rates because of changes to
the Waste Management Act in 1993. These changes required municipalities to
offer variable refuse rates and determine what size refuse container an
average small quantity generator would need. As part of this evaluation
the city had Decision Resources conduct a survey of residents. The survey
results determined that 30 gallon containers would be what an average small
quantity generator in Hopkins would need.
Specifications were then drawn up and bids were opened on July 21, 1994.
Bids received were as follows:
Please refer to attached bid tabulation.
The bids were basically evaluated on what container would best work with
our automated refuse system. The Schaefer container was put through a
rigorous testing procedure which included taking the containers to
Christian Salveson and freezing them to simulate winter conditions. The
container was then picked up and dropped from the arms of the refuse truck
from 15 feet in the air. The container held up very well in this test and
others that were performed. Two Schaefer references were called and both
were very pleased, both with the containers and their working relations
with Schaefer.
4ItAnalvsis of issues
o Does the Schaefer container meet specifications?
The Schaefer container met all pertinent specifications. We basically
looked at what staff thought were the most important features on all
containers bid and went with the low bid. We tested the Schaefer
container and feel it will withstand the rigorous workout it gets on a
weekly basis in all types of weather.
o What containers were included in Schaefer's bid?
The containers that were included in Schaefers bid were basically the
same except for appearance. The 30 gallon container was a slightly
different style than the 60 and 90 gallon container. Schaefer bid it
this way because the 30 gallon container that matches the 60 and 90
gallon container was not available at the time of the bid process.
o What alternative was offered by Schaefer?
During the review process after the bid opening, staff was informed
that the matching 30 gallon container would be available some time in
mid-1995. Schaefer said that if the city wanted the matching 30
gallon container, instead of the 30 gallon container included in the
bid to the city of Hopkins, that they would supply it to the city at
the same bid price as in their original proposal. The only catch
4It however, was that they would not be able to supply it until mid-1995.
Please refer to the attached letter from Schaefer.
Council Report: 94-211
Page 3
.0 Should the alternative be accepted?
Staff feels that the city should award the bid accepting the
alternative proposal from Schaefer. Awarding the bid in this fashion
will insure that the city will have similar looking containers instead
of an assortment. If the bid is awarded in this fashion, it would be
staff's intent to have the new 60 gallon containers delivered by
January 1, 1995. staff would furthermore like to have Council change
the Refuse rates effective January 1, 1995. A refuse rate change at
this time would coincide with the delivery of the new 60 gallon
containers, and also be a good change over date for our billing
department.
The rate change would also be effective for the residents who
requested a 30 gallon container. They would be charged the 30 gallon
rate even though they would continue to use the 90 gallon container
for half of 1995. staff recommends this as part of the Change-over
since most of these residents have been anxiously waiting for lower
refuse rates. Also most of these residents do not currently use their
90 gallon container's full capacity.
0 Is Schaefer a reputable firm to work with?
Schaefer appears to be a responsible firm. Both references called
have said good things about both the container and the company.
.0 How and when will delivery take place?
Delivery of the 60 and 90 gallon containers is scheduled for mid-
December 1994, and the 30 gallon containers by next July" 1995.
Schaefer is responsible for assembling the containers after delivery.
When the new 30 gallon containers are received, Schaefer will assemble
these containers as well.
0 What is the total cost and how will these containers be funded?
The cost breakdown for the different containers is outlined on the bid
tabulation sheet. The container cost will be funded by the Refuse
utility fund.
.
-- ---- .~
0 ~ ~ Ul ~ 1-3 1-3 ttl ()
1-3 () 0 0 0 H H
1-3 () () ~ 1-3 1-3 1-3 0 8
0 10 10 0 t:rJ t:rJ D i-<:
c::: c::: t:rJ ~ ~ t:rJ
t:rJ tr:I I-J:j ~ 0
t:rJ tr:I t:rJ I-J:j
Z Z ~
e ::r:
- 0
H 'U
Z ?:::
en H
t:rJ Z
'::0 en
1-3
-
ttl ttl txI txI tIl ttl tJj ()
tIl ttl t:Jj txI ttl ttl t:Jj ?:::
-
ttl
ttl
-
()
~
en
::r: 'U
~
0
y
W f-> W W W * W w tr:I
1I1 -..I 0'1 W 00 W 00 0 ()
. . . . . 00 . 1-3
0'1 0 -..I -..I ". . U1 Gl
". 0 0'1 0'1 00 1I1 0 ~
0 t""
I--' I--' f-> I--' I--' f-> W
1I1 -..I 1I1 ". 0'1 0'1 0'1 0 ttl
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H
f-> N 0'1 W W W w 1-3 0
". N N ". 1I1 0'1 0'1 0
-..I U1 W 00 N N N 1-3 1-3
e . . . . . . . :P'
0 g g g ~ ~ U1 txI
0 0 c:::
". W W W ". ". ". 0'1 ~
-..I 1.0 1.0 0'1 f-> 0 I--' 0 1-3
. . . . . . . H
0'1 ". ". -..I W N N Gl 0
". I--' I--' 0'1 0 U1 1I1 ~ Z
t""
N W N I--' N N N 0'1
1I1 -..I 0 1.0 I--' I--' I--' 0
, , ... ... ~ ... ...
0 ". 0'1 N 0'1 I--' 0'1 1-3
I--' W 1.0 1.0 OJ W 1I1 0
f-> 1.0 0 1.0 N I--' 0'1 1-3
. . . . . . .
a U1 N a ~ N N
a a 1I1 a en lI1
1I1 ". ". ". ". ". ". 1.0
N 1I1 lI1 00 -..I W ". a
. . . . . . .
I--' a 0 -..I a 0'1 0'1 Gl
". N N 0'1 a a 0 :P'
t""
1.0
N N N N N N N 0
... ~ ~ ... ~ ... ~ ,
0'1 N N ". W I--' N 1-3
0 lI1 lI1 W lI1 00 W 0
-..I f-> I--' 00 0 a a 1-3
. . . . . . .
a 0 a 0 0 0 0
e 0 a a 0 0 0 a 0
:P'
". ". W W ". W ". 1-3
N 0'1 00 0'1 0 1.0 0 1-3 tr:I
... ... ~ ... ... ... ... 0 ..
-..I 1.0 lI1 0 w 0'1 N 1-:3
0'1 I--' 0'1 00 00 -..I ". ~ -..I
U1 U1 ". lI1 U1 W 00 -
. . . . . . . N
a lI1 N 0 0 -..I -..I I--'
a 0 U1 a a lI1 U1 -
1.0
".
[
551 SCHAEFER
-. SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
10021 Westlake Drive
P,Q. Box 7009
October 24, 1994 Charlotte, N,C. 28241
Phone: (704) 588-2150
Fax: (704) 588-1862
Mr. Lee Gustafson, PE
Public Works Director
City of Hopkins
Public Works Department
1601 Second Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Dear Mr. Gustafson:
I would first like to thank you for your time last Wednesday afternoon. It is always a
pleasure to get a name and face together.
. The resin crisis we discussed is very real and of a major concern. Price guarantees from
resin suppliers are good for only thirty (30) days, however, Schaefer Systems is willing to
bite the bullet and offer the City of Hopkins our USD30B container at the bid price of
$33.76 for delivery during July-August of 1995. The USD95 and USD65 containers are
available at the bid price with a delivery time of four (4) to six (6) weeks after receipt of
order. The price per container does include Warranty Insurance for the 10 year period.
Again, thanks for your time. I will look forward to any additional questions you might have.
Sincerely,
551 SCHAEFER SYSTEMS JNTERNA TIONAL, Inc.
Waste Technology Division
/'
'.J, ..~
/ '. ." -- .....,/.. .
/~4--<>'~-t'~.
Michael L. Knaub
National Sales Manager
Enclosures
.
---- - -
CITY OF HOPKINS
- Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 94-104
RESOLUTION FOR AWARD OF BID
RESIDENTIAL REFUSE CONTAINERS
WHEREAS, the city of Hopkins took bids for suppling residential
refuse containers on July 21, 1994; and
WHEREAS, seven bids were received and the low bid of Schaefer
Systems International was the lowest responsible bid for
furnishing the containers; and
WHEREAS, the city has determined that the bid should be awarded
in accordance with the October 24, 1994 letter from Schaefer
Systems International as shown as Attachment "A".
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the
City of Hopkins, Minnesota that the bid of Schaefer Systems
International, in the amount of $36,085.00 is the lowest
responsible bid for furnishing residential refuse
. containers, and the Mayor and city Clerk are hereby
authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said
bidder for and on behalf of the City.
Adopted by the city Council of the City of Hopkins this 1st day
of November, 1994.
BY
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jim Genellie, city Clerk
II