1972-4908r1
1::,;~OI.,U`i'IO~T D.~TERi~~I:~TIi~_IG I_,OS,UCS"i: R~,S~'O~`JS:[BrE
F3:!:DDE~ 1~i\(O ~1~i~Il~f:D:I:1VG CON~['R?C1' FOR P~JRCE?_~1SF
OF V.:~C (~U i`~;'i S %~ti IT:~`:C.iO~~f CJ.iv IT
~; ;T I-+ 4-' n'r' ja. ~ p ? e 1:. ~ ., ~ e 1 :~ Gy, r;1 i ~ h
i.i.,~~_.a_ ~ , C'OI _pet_tiV b~f ~ lave .OCE'n r CC \% d by th .1/ Or t:i~'-~' :~c1.i.C-' `LO
file city O a VaCUU.~"n San:ltatiOn Llni"~.:, and
vv.~C_~,j~t''1.~, ).t a~p~ar:i nc~C:'~'.sSar~,~ fG'r tilt: COtlr!C7.]_ t0 E'Va~?zatC', tiiE,' ,:: 1.d :`3 i"ecOlVCd
anCl t0 make a dr-,'tCfri.'i`lation ds f:0 til` .iOWeSt T'G-'SpOnsibl_e '.OidCi~~.i bC?SCCI 1l~iOXl sUC'r!
E'lTa ~ ua tl.On;
4~;
NOv~T, THEREFORE, BE lT iZJ;~OLVFO by the City Cou?ICiI of the City of Richfi~~lct,
F
1rTi_nnesota, as ~o.._ows~
1 , The city council here~nr:ith make the following dete-rminatior~.so
~, There are sufficient va~~~iations in the design, construction and
lJ
ot'ner features of a vacuum sanitation unit so that sl.ICh eciuipment
is not capab.l_e of precise or exact specifications, It i.s, therefore,
necessary for the counci_1 %o make a deterrrlination of v~r'rlich of the
bidde:cs is the lowest responszbl.e bidder an such equipmec?t. and, in
so doing, to consider in addition to the bid price, thy; c7LZality, suita-
bili%y and adaptabi.li%y o.f tl<e ecI(.lipmeni: for the use for vvhic~: it i.s
intended
b, Based upon srzch general criteria, the bid of VlacOueerl Equipment, Irlc. ,
is hereby fOUrAd and determined to be t'ne lowest respozlsible bid on the
vacuum sanitation unit.
c. `l:his determination is based upon such considerations as:
1
(l} Tb.e fact that the lowesi. price bidder fnr this unit took the follo~,virag
F'«C.Cllti.OTl t0 t.'n:? Ci'ty~S SpeCitlcati0?"1S:
a , Hoist: rump belt drit7e ~_ro~1 the au~ l;ary engine :kn lieu
Ot r'1~ C'.i:7.V£'1~ %r0t'i transfer Case.
(~) ~:he fact that COiTlparative teSi.S Llndertstel~, by tfle city 1sel
and by another r"ilan i c i pa? ity indica res that %he unifi proposed by
l~iacQueen Equipment, Inc, can perform. the vacuuming fT_~nctions
in a snorter period of time as com~cared to the unit proposed 'oy
t'ne lowest price bidder,
(3) The fact that the Aoa~ver boom on the unit proposed by MacQl_~een
Equipment, Inc, has a Larger cylinder size, greater ~nrorking arc
and the time -required to move the hose unit from one port to
another is substantially less as compared to the unit offered by the
104VeSt price bidder.
(4) The double wall const~:~ction of the tailgate c?n the unit proposed
by MacQueen Equipment, Inca is deemed to be superior :i.n c:~esign
in that a.t v~ri.ll resist 'the possible lea;,ing and ~nrill continue to
provide maximum vacuum condit.ians as compared to the proposed
machine by the lo~nrest price bidder.
(J) Tl-le avaiiabi.lity o.~ repair and nlain~:-enance parts, as well as, the.
availability of v~rell-trained personne_ is grea~_er witn t. e un.~t
proposed by i/IacQueen Equipment, Inc, as compared to tree proposed
unit by the lowest price bidder. ,
(6) The additional front air chamber and deflection unit tivithin the
machine proposed by 1VIacQueen Equipment, Inc, is deemed to '.oe
superior irz providing additiox~.al :,`_iltratio_n of susper?.:led partic:.les as
compared to the machine proposed by the lowest price bidder>
2 a .L's~.e bid o_f ~,~iacC~ueen ~'c{uiomen~, frzc, to supply a rlacuurn sanita~_~on u~~i
l~or the sum of $15 , 937 > 35 'i s hereby accepted, The purchase price far
such eciuioment steal]. be pa?.d out of t he Capi c~~l Outlay ,?1cco~_znt of the
rye veer i'und .
Passed by the City Council of the CitzT of Richfield this lath day of
February, 1973 a
n L. La~,v, ~~,~ayar
X12"I'LST:
~.
Thomas T~ ~LloraT~ n,-.CitY Clerk
C