CR 91-119 Play Equipment Complex Bid Awards
.
,~.
.
f
i
,,_n
Consent .lgenda
('
i
i \ 1 y
May 21, 1991
Council Report: 91-119
o p
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 Eauipment
Co. in the amount of $14.999.00 for furnishina the Central 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. six bids were received to supply play equipment for
central Park. Staff is recommending approval of the bid to Miracle
Recreation Equipment Co. in the amount of $14,999.00. This
recommendation is made based on review of the proposed bids using
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?
Supporting Information.
o
o
o
o
Staff Analysis of Issues
Alternatives
Attachment A - Bid Tab Matrix
park~~lans
n, Parks/Forestry Superintendent
I \
Council Report: 91-119
May 21, 1991
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 $15,000.00 for each
play equipment complex including central Park. Bids were based
upon a fixed fee of $14,999 .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.
:.
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 equ.ipmen.t make it extremely .hard
to bid fairly using such criteria.
The city could have attempted to design a complex where
every bidder submitted a bid and staff then chose the low
bid. Staff felt that this was risky, bids may come in below
budgeted amounts or worse yet way above the budgeted
amount. This would have delayed 1990 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 $14,999.00. 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 three
play complex installations last year.
1.
2.
Alternatives.
The Council has the following alternatives:
.
Approve the bid as recommended by staff. Adoption of this motion
will allow construction to begin on or about August 6th and be
completed for use on or about September 30.
1.
.
~.
.
:r
Council Report: 91-119
May 21, 1991
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
1990.
RV:km
.
.
.
i'
COUNCIL REPORT 91-119
ATTACHMENT A
BID TAB MATRIX
CENTRAL PARK PLAY EQUIPMENT
><
H
H
,-... ,-... H'-'" ,-... ,-... ,-...
Cf) :::r:: :::r:: <tl:::r:: :::r:: :::r:: :::r::
H U U ZU U U U
Z <tl <tl H<tl <tl <tl <tl
~ ~ ~ 0.~ ~ ~ ~~
::>,-... H H Cf)
~:::r:: Cf) Cf) ~Cf) Cf) Cf) <tlCf) H
U H H OH H H qH Z
r:z..<tl ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H
O~ 0 <.(j ~'M ~N 0
~M ZM M M ~
~H ~ Z ~'~ ~I ~
~~ H I H I 0 I ::> I .~
!~ ~M ~~ H ~ H
Cf) .-l ~~ HM H
BIDDER :::J'-' ~'-' <tl'-' ~'-' 0
0- U q ::s: Cf) q -H
MIRACLE EQUIPMENT 21 3 3 3 2 2' '2'; 36
ST. CROIX REC. CO. 20 3 3 2 2 2 2 34
MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND 20 1 2 2 2 1 1 29
VALUE RECREATION 21 3 3 2 3 3 1 36
FLAN~GAN SALES, INC. 19 3 2 2 2 2 1 31
EARL F. ANDERSON A 17 3 3 3 3 2 2 33
B 18 3 3 3 3 2 2 34
C 17 3 3 3 3 2 2 33
.
~
'" 0
1ft .
< ...
- 1ft
'" ..
1ft
!?
~
"
,.
o
.
o
[:-
[I
i:J
...-
q
I
'd
~
OJ
"0
..,
o
..,
ClI
a
l':l
.....
III
a
III
::l
,.,.
tn
"O"O"'l"'l~r-tIlm
..........,..,..,111111111
n ClI ClI I>> .., ::l ..........
::l '< .... .... .... 0. ..... .....
..... .... ...., \Q U1 ..., .....
o t"l I>> 0 .... ...
,ot"""fTl>>lDlD
en c:: ....1ll...."O........
::r.....o no III 0.0.
lD "0 ::r 0 ::l
...afT::l "t"''''l
,.,. III .... III " Cl) ... Cl)
Cl)::l::lfT,Cl)'C.o::l
11.....0..,"0 l1I::rn
c: ... .... .... ...
01>>I1".::l
.... n ::l IQ
....Cl)1lI1Q
o :I ::l
::l Cl) 0.
::l
........
:I
'C
..,
o
<
Cl)
:3
Cl)
::l
....
tn
-!
~
.
.
o
:=-=== IQ
~
~=-=
-
t. '
r-~ -,'.'
" ',/.
-
<-..;. ~
, c
f"'ii ~
'--:....;1 ;
Ii i
I'
,)
~.
I.=-'
'"
'.'
.
~
. .,
.. .
--
i~
""-...~---
,.. -...----
.'
...:-;~'
I
'(
""
",:
-.
o
~
.
~
()
"
..
...
o.
I __-1 e-:::~
.eo> ~ ~.
~ .
,-
( (
II
I'
Y
.,
"
,.
.,
r
I
'<
'"
o
'"