CR 92-136 Play Equipment Complex
r "\,
~ . y
\ 1: 0
,i. ..~~.
. . ....;
. June 11,1992 + 0 P K ,~'" Council Report: 92-136
PLAY EQUIPMENT COMPLEX
BID AWARDS
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: "Move to direct the Mayor and
City Manager to enter into contract with Miracle Recreation Equipment
Co. in the amount of $25.000.00 for furnishinq the Valley Park Play
Equipment".
Overview.
The city council has approved a park capital improvement program and a
financial plan which authorizes the construction of new play equipment
at various city parks.
Staff has previously worked with Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
to develop park concept plans, and specifications for play equipment
complexes. Four bids were received to supply play equipment for
Valley Park. Staff is recommending approval of the bid to Miracle
Recreation Equipment Co. in the amount of $25,000.00. This
recommendation is made based on review of the proposed bids using
4It established criteria.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o How do the bid results compare to the estimated budget?
o What alternatives could be used in the bidding process?
o What is the proposed source of funds for this project?
Supportinq Information.
o Staff Analysis of Issues
o Alternatives
o Attachment A - Bid Tab Matrix
o P Concept Plans
~~
Ray n, Parks/Forestry Superintendent
.
~ council Report: 92-136
June 11, ,1992
Page 2 .
.-
Staff Analysis of Issues.
o How do the bid results compare to the estimated budget?
The budgeted figure in the park C.I.P. was $25,000.00 for the
play equipment complex at Valley Park. Bids were based upon a
fixed fee of $25,000.00 per site to comply with the allocated
dollar figure. Bids were therefore within the budgeted amount.
o What alternatives could be used in the bidding process?
Westwood Professional services and staff explored several options
before arriving at the option chosen.
1. We could have bid anyone of three or four specific criteria
which, in effect, would have excluded all but one or
possibly two suppliers of play equipment from the bidding
process. For example; requiring all support posts to be of
aluminum construction, U. s. steel or requiring one of the
slides to be a "roller type" slide vs metal or plastic. The
variables involved in play equipment make it extremely hard
to bid fairly using such criteria.
2. The city could have attempted to design a complex where
. e,!ery bidder submitted a, bid and,. staff . then chose tI:e low
- b1d. staff felt that thlS was r1sky, b1ds may come 1n way
above the budgeted amount. This would have delayed 1992
construction by forcing the city to re-bid the projects.
3. The plans and specifications could be developed in a manner
that allows most manufacturers to bid, but bases the bids on
a fixed fee and a minimum set of play components with all
metal play equipment. Bidders then could design the
configuration and amount of play equipment beyond the basic
required set which they could provide given the' fixed bid
amount of $25,000.00. Staff then could evaluate the
individual characteristics of each proposal and select the
best proposal for the city; based upon the criteria found in
the matrix. This process was successfully used in all four
play complex installations over the last two years.
Alternatives.
The Council has the following alternatives:
1. Approve the bid as recommended by staff. Adoption of this motion
will allow construction to begin on or about August 1st and be
completed for use on or about September 30.
.
..,
-, .,. council Report: 92-136
>
June 11, 1992
Page 3
. 2. continue approval to a later date. This is not recommended due
to the time needed by Twin cities Tree Trust to schedule the free
installation. The crews will be released by the September 30th
time frame. All proposals are in and evaluations have been
fairly made.
3. Reject all bids, develop a different bidding procedure and re-
advertise for bids. This is not recommended due to the
commitment made to these projects by Park Board. The Park Board
desires some park improvements in each year of the 3 year
modified plan. Rejection of all bids would preclude any work in
1992, which is year 3 of the park improVIDent program.
RV:km
.
.
.
,
~
. COUNCIL REPORT 92-136
ATTACHMENT A
BID TAB MATRIX
VALLEY PARK PLAY EQUIPMENT
tl)
J>< P'l
E-t P=i
H P
~ ~
P'l
H ~
c.!:)
,.-., ,.-., H,.-., ,.-., ,.-., ,.-., J><,.-.,
tl) ::r:: ::r:: P=i:;t: ::c: ::r:: :;t: E-t:;t:
E-i u u au u u U HU
Z <11 <11 <11 <11 <11 <11 ...:l<l1
P'l r.>:I r.>:I <<,:)r.>:I P'l r.>:I ~~ HI"'l
1>,.-., E-t J:Q tl)
1"'l::C: tl) tl) Zu:l tl) tl) <I1tl) H tl) E-t
U H E-t c.!:)E-t E-t E-t OE-t u:lE-t Z
1'<-<<11 p., ~p., Hp., p., p., p., tl)p., H
O~ c.!:) tl) J>< ~C'-j ~ 0
P=iE-t J><C"1 ZC"1 >"IC"1 E-tC"1 C"1 u~ p.,
E-t ~ A ~I J>< 4:! U
~p., HI ...:ll 1 E-tl :>1 <111 ...:l
J:Q ...:l ...:l 4:! ~ H <11
;:n.... <.-I <.-I H.-I P=i.-l ~.-I ...:l.-l <11.-1 E--t
~- p- :;t:- . H- <11- <"--' ~- ~- 0
0' U tl) ~ tl) 0 E--t
MIRACLE EQUIPMENT 25 3 3 3 3 2 2 4 45
. MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND 11 20 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 31
MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND B 30 1 3 3 1 2 1 3 44
VALUE RECREATION 16 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 35
EARL F. ANDERSON 21 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 39
,.
.
.. ....
. .~:;. ;.:~:/ti .::.
. r.' ,,) . ~,,~)~/ ' .
'" ~~
y---- '
.~ . ... -. ' .. .
~':--:. " . . \ , '. .~-;--'-
[ill'" .
- . . . ~ ..:
'. ,,'
.. '".~ r.1
.. (
. -')\j
. ,
.
:
. . ...
.
. "-
. {- -:/
.
~
. ,,--'~
, /
.
.
. ..:..,1.....
I if,.. ..,.......
, ,---;.-..... ,----'
t~ ~(
-. ~
..../ "'.
~ 11'.....
" .~ .' '
'l(o
,
..- ............, ~'-
-
.
~ DATE:
REVISED:
y @1~ 2.90' .~UO' \ "
i \
\
". \ i
..'!Ii.... 1
,
....... !
,. ,"""
.......
vALLEY pARlt A-1 . "--... "
,'1.( " , \
proaram Elements
parking Lots -
Trail Reconstru~~~~nand West
play Equipment
picnic Shelter
. Tennis Courts -
Wading pool I"It p nTTL.II' MD
.... iB.:UlST1HQ TRIoL
.
= FlECONSTNJCTEP TAAIL
.' PROPOSED "tRAAl.
. ....,
........
..~:.' ~.~:>/.:.): :.,
'." ....,.
. '.,". . . .
......
. '-.
".