HomeMy WebLinkAbout28-Parks & Recreation
,
, .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Dept: Parks, Recreation & Community
Services D~eQt,.. .", .
Date: May 13, 20rifl hl\.. I · ~ 4J
Subject: RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AWARDING HEISLER LANDSCAPE
AND GENERAL ENGINEERING & DAVE BANG
ASSOCIATES, INC. A PURCHASE ORDER FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF PLAYGROUND
EQUIPMENT AND SURFACING AT (11) PARK
LOCATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH BID
SPECIFICATIONS F-02-035, ANNE SHlRRELLS
PARK, NICHOLSON PARK, HUDSON PARK,
MEADOWBROOK (KERWIN) FIELDS, SPEICHER
PARK, NUNEZ PARK, MILL CENTER PARK,
LYTLE CREEK PARK, ENCANTO PARK,
NEWBERRY PARK, AND TOM GOULD PARK.
MICC Meeting Date: May 20, 2002
From: Lemuel P. Randolph, Director
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
5/6/02 - Item tabled at the meeting of the Mayor and Common Council.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution
~~~~
Signature
Contact person: Dan Ustation
Phone: 384-5130
Supporting data attached: staff report & Resolution
Ward: 1,3,4,5,6, & 7
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: $725,000
Source: (Acct. No.) 243-363-5504-7264
(Acct. Description) Park Construction Fund - Propl2
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No. ~
SjJ.D/Dr
"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Staff Report
Subject:
Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino awarding Heisler
Landscape and General Engineering, & Dave Bang Associates, Inc. a purchase order for the
installation of playground equipment and surfacing at (I I) park locations in accordance with bid
specifications F-02-035, Anne Shirrells Park, Nicholson Park, Hudson Park, Meadowbrook
(Kerwin) Fields, Speicher Park, Nunez Park, Mill Center Park, Lytle Creek Park, Encanto Park,
Newberry Park, and Tom Gould Park.
Background:
The staff report for the May 6, 2002 Mayor and Common Council meeting on this item used the
cost per activity as a substantial justification for the recommendation of proposal award to
Heisler Landscape and Dave Bang and Associates. Since that time staff has determined that the
method of calculating the number of activities significantly differs from vendor to vendor. One
vendor may calculate a piece of equipment as having (I) activity while another vendor could
calculate a similar piece of equipment as having (3) activities based on the potential number of
simultaneous users. Due to this fact, and based on the language in the request for proposals
(RFP) regarding the criteria for ranking of proposals, this current report reflects a
recommendation based on the listed criteria in the (RFP): (1) variety and type of playground
equipment, (2) experience of vendor and/or subcontractor, (3) experience and knowledge in the
design of similar playground structures, (4) warranty offered and (5) price proposal.
The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department prepared the appropriate
specifications and the purchasing division of the Finance Department published and furnished
request for proposal (RFP) documents to five (5) vendors and the San Bernardino Chamber of
Commerce. RFP documents were advertised in the Sun Newspaper and City web page.
Proposals were publicly opened and declared on December 19, 2001. Due to the proprietary
nature of playground equipment, a formal bid process was not possible. All vendors were told in
the proposal process the budget available and were provided wide latitude and encouragement to
design unique play activities for each park within that budget. The following is a summary of
the eight (8) bids received from five (5) vendors.
COIDoanv
1. WF Construction (Burke)
WF Construction (Little Tikes)
2. Park Specialties (Landscape Structures)
3. Micon (Miracle #1)
Micon (Miracle #2)
Micon (Miracle #3)
4. Casron (Burke)
5. Heisler Landscape (Playworld)
City
San Dimas
San Dimas
Temecula
Placentia
Placentia
Placentia
Santa Monica
Orange
Bid
$589,000.00
$579,710.00
$755,345.00
$619,505.02
$553,649.47
$525,545.10
$689,900.00
$725,000.00
There are no local vendors who can supply this equipment. The funding for the playground
equipment and surfacing is from Proposition 12 State Park Bond Funds. The amount budgeted
for the project is $739,200.
These Proposals were subjected to an initial evaluation process that included a review of all
mandatory requirements in the proposal submissions, and verification of valid California
Contractor Licenses. Vendors were notified of any missing information and requested to supply
the information. Missing information was received and reviewed.
Evaluators were requested to review all eight proposals independently and rank the proposals
from first (l5t) to eight (8th) place based on the following criteria as referenced in the proposal.
The City Proposal Analysis Group will independently read, review and evaluate each
proposal and selection will be made on the basis of the criteria listed below. The firms
submitting proposals shall include with that proposal statements on the following:
A. Variety and type of playground equipment.
B. Experience of vendor and/or sub-contractor (if used).
C. Experience and knowledge in the design of similar playground structures.
D. Warranty offered
E. Cost of services; (i.e., price proposal)
The Proposal Analysis Group will rate each proposal and develop a composite rating which
indicates the group's collective ranking of the highest rated proposals in a descending order. At
this point, the Proposal Analysis Group may conduct interviews with onlv the top ranked firms,
usually the top three depending upon the number of proposals received The Proposal Analysis
Group will conduct all subsequent negotiations and will make a recommendation for the contract
award
The Proposal Analysis Group consisted of, the Purchasing Manager, the interim Parks
Superintendent, Parks Maintenance Supervisor, Engineering Associate and 3 representatives of
the Parks' Commission. The proposals that did not receive further consideration were 2 separate
proposals which were lacking sufficient playground references, one proposal which had
substantially fewer activities, and the other proposal which was over the budget by $20,000.
The Proposal Analysis Group recommended that the top four proposals including (two separate
options from the same vendor) which resulted in requests for presentations from three separate
companies. The vendors asked to provide a presentation of their proposal were Heisler
Landscape, Micon Construction, and Casron Services. Each proposer was given one hour to
present their proposals and answer any questions the group had regarding their proposals.
Based on Evaluation Section IV of the request for proposal "the primary consideration will be
the effectiveness of the agency or organization in the delivery of the product and services based
on demonstrated performance. Cost effectiveness is only one component, and not necessarily
the primary one". Each of these proposals represents a single source procurement (although
, .
similar suitable products are available from multiple vendors, the proposals are unique and
cannot be awarded only on the basis of price.)
Also noted in Instruction to Bidders Section I #6 & # 12 of the proposal states "The City reserves
the option to make award(s) as it deems to be in the best interest of the City". As stated in the
proposal we will award based on the criteria stated and recommend for award the lowest and
best bidder (as referenced in section 3.04.085 service).
Based on the presentations and committee discussion afterwards, the Proposal Analysis Group
unanimously recommended that the award for this proposal to Heisler Landscape/Dave Bang
Associates/Playworld Systems be forwarded to Council for their final approval and award.
Heisler Landscape, Dave Bang & Associates, and Playworld Systems have included in their
proposal a one year maintenance and inspection service from an outside third-party company.
There are state mandates regarding maintenance and inspection services for all playground areas.
The requirement is that a certified Playground Inspector must perform them at established
intervals. We have in-house staff that are certified and perform these inspection services for our
playground sites. The advantage of a third-party analysis however, is that it frees up the
maintenance staff, and is always performed by professional, insured, licensed, certified and
neutral professionals. Another Proposer offered a 3-year quarterly inspection period, but it was
to be performed by the Manufacturer, rather than a neutral third party inspector.
Heisler Landscape, Dave Bang & Associates, and Playworld Systems have a unique warranty
service policy. They are the only Proposer who keeps "loaner" parts available to send out on a
warranty or service problem, until the new part is installed. No other Proposer presented any
solution similar to this. In our past experience with other equipment, we have had to wait and
staff has had to block off, or remove unusable/unsafe equipment until replacements can be
ordered and installed. The Heisler Landscape warranty service policy will ensure that our
playgrounds are always safe and fully usable. This is important because a reorder of modular
components (as there are 30 different colors) may take between 4-6 weeks before it can be
installed.
Heisler Landscape was the only proposal that will not require any reconfiguration and/or
negotiations. Because of this factor, the Heisler proposal would require less time to have
equipment in place. As we are approaching the summer playground season, which is the busiest
time of year for the Parks, lead and installation times are critical. Delays in the completion of the
projects and the condition of the current equipment could result in playgrounds that will be
unusable for the majority of the summer season. Currently there are at least two of these sites
that have had most or all of the old equipment removed because the age and condition of the
equipment represented a serious public safety risk. The committee felt that the solution for Tom
Gould Park, from MiconlMiracle did not include enough activities, and if this vendor were
selected the Tom Gould Park Playground would have to be redesigned at an additional cost. The
vendor was informed of that determination during their presentation. Casron's design for Ann
Shirrells Park was not in compliance with the request that the tot area and general playground
areas be separated. Although an alternate design was submitted after the presentations, no
negotiation was begun to determine any changes to the cost of the proposal.
The Heisler Landscape proposal included important site amenities such as benches and signage
that the other proposals did not include. Vendors were allowed to design and include any
products and items that would provide a quality playground. Safety and security of the children
playing is very important. Providing benches so that adults and caregivers can sit close by and
observe their children is an important safety factor. This feature will encourage more people to
use the playground facilities. The other proposals did not include benches or custom
identification signage. These "Welcome" signs represent a symbol of pride for each
neighborhood and the City as a whole. If we were to negotiate with the other vendors the cost
would increase for the bids.
Heisler Landscape, Dave Bang & Associates, and Playworld Systems, as part of their service
program, will provide training to in-house staff. A maintenance and safety seminar, including
comprehensive forms and records keeping materials, will be conducted with City Park
Maintenance Employees that are responsible for the playground safety.
The Heisler proposal included numerous activities for a wide range of ages and skill levels. The
committee felt that overall the designs prepared by Heisler were the most desirable. The
proposal included activities both in modular systems and individual components throughout the
play area. Their designs in the smaller parks provided effective use of the playground space
without sacrificing activities, or narrowing the appropriate age group for the activity. The
designs included fewer pieces of equipment that contained moving parts, which may tend to
suffer adversely from the elements and require replacement or repair sooner than non-moving
apparatus.
Financial Impact:
The Proposition 12 spending plan approved by Mayor and Common Council in 2001 included a
budget of $739,200. Based on this contract award the actual cost is $725,000 with a contingency
of$14,200.
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution.
"
..... .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AWARDING HEISLER LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL
ENGINEERING & DAVE BANG ASSOCIATES, INC. A PURCHASE ORDER FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND SURFACING AT (11)
PARK LOCATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH BID SPECIFICATIONS F-02-035,
ANNE SHIRRELLS PARK, NICHOLSON PARK. HUDSON PARK.
MEADOWBROOK (KERWIN) FIELDS, SPEICHER PARK. NUNEZ PARK. MILL
CENTER PARK. LYTLE CREEK PARK. ENCANTO PARK. NEWBERRY PARK.
AND TOM GOULD PARK.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That Heisler Landscape and General Engineering & Dave Bang Associates, Inc.
is the best responsible bidder for the furnishing and delivery of playground and surfacing for
the eleven (11) park sites in accordance with Bid Specifications F-02-035, for a total amount of
$725,000, and as such, the City is authorized to enter into the standard purchase agreement with
Heisler Landscape and General Engineering & Dave Bang Associates, Inc.; pursuant to this
determination, the issuance of a purchase order by the Purchasing Manger to Heisler Landscape
and General Engineering & Dave Bang Associates, Inc. in the amount of $725,000 is hereby
authorized; and all other quotations therefore are hereby rejected.
SECTION 2. The authorization to execute the above referenced agreement is
rescinded if the parties to the agreement fail to execute it within sixty (60) days of the passage
of this resolution.
III
III
III
III
III
III
r
.~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AWARDING HEISLER LANDSCAPE AND GENERAL
ENGINEERING & DAVE BANG ASSOCIATES, INC. A PURCHASE ORDER FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND SURFACING AT (11)
PARK LOCATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH BID SPECIFICATIONS F-02-03S,
ANNE SHIRRELLS PARK, NICHOLSON PARK, HUDSON PARK,
MEADOWBROOK (KERWIN) FIELDS, SPEICHER PARK, NUNEZ PARK, MILL
CENTER PARK, LYTLE CREEK PARK, ENCANTO PARK, NEWBERRY PARK,
AND TOM GOULD PARK.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor
and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held
day of
, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
on the
Council Members:
AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
ESTRADA
LIEN
MCGINNIS
DERRY
SUAREZ
ANDERSON
MCCAMMACK
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
2002.
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to
Form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attor[1ey
o/)
By: AI"" JI
"""~'~:'."
"
. .
WEULE, BROYLES, BALLARD &MONUQ.J..Lr. .
A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional corponKt.~tIVED-CITY CLERK
M. Colleen Weule, APC t*
Samuel G. Broyles, Jr.. APC *
Edward R. Ballard, APC
Glenn Mondo, APC *
Tower 17
18881 Van Karman Avenue, Suite 1225
Irvine, California 92612
'02
HAY 20 A11.aBated with
Weule, Broyles & Mondo, LLP
Las Vegas, NY (702) 837-7528
Reno, NY (775) 337-8805
Telephooe (949) 476-2088
Facsimile (949) 476-3095
www.wbbmconstructionlaw.com
Phoenix, Arizona
(602) 253-0612
Joho C. Teal, Jr. Of Counsel
Admitted to Practice in Arizona t
Admitted to Practice in Nevada *
May 20, 2002
Via Hand Delivery
Rachel Clark, CMC
City Clerk
300 N. "D" Street, 2nd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: RFP F-02-035 "Upgrade of Playground Equipment at 11 Park Suites"
Appeal of Award
Dear Ms. Clark:
The enclosed copies of my letter dated May 17, 2002 to Marsha Zeller and enclosures are
being sent to you in connection with the council meeting. 1 also request that each council member
be given a set before the meeting.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
M. Colleen Weule
MCW:jk
Enclosures
J:\WPDATAIMCWlMicon Construction\General\city clerk transntiltal
.,
WEULE, BROYLES, BALLARD & MONDO, LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional C011>Orations
M. Colleen Weule, APC t.
Samuel G. Broyles, Jr., APC.
Edward R. Ballard, APC
Glenn Mondo, APC .
Tower 17
18881 VonKannanAvenue, Suite 1225
Irvine, California 92612
John C. Teal, Jr. Of Counsel
Telephone (949) 476-2088
Facsimile (949) 476-3095
www.wbbmconstructionlaw.com
Affiliated with
Weule, Broyles & Mondo, LLP
Las Vegas, NY (702) 837-7528
Reno, NY (775) 337-8805
Phoenix., .Arizona
(602) 253-0612
Admitted to Practice in Arizona t
Admitted to Practice in Nevada.
May 17, 2002
Via Facsimile: 909.384.5043
Marsha Zeller, Purchasing Manager
City of San Bernardino Finance Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
RE: RFP F-02-035 "Upgrade of Playground Equipment at II Park Sites"
Appeal of Recommended Award
Dear Ms. Zeller:
,
As you know, this firm represents Micon Construction, Inc. ("Micon"), which submitted
three proposals in response to the above-reference RFP. We initially protested the staff's
tentative recommendation by letter dated May 3, 2002. We did not pursue that appeal further
because Micon was informed by your office that it believed that a mistake had occurred, and as a
result the matter was pulled from the Council's agenda. It has now come to our attention that the
City staff now intends to recommend the award of the contract in this matter to Heisler Landcape
("Heisler") rather than to Micon. On behalf of Micon, we hereby appeal the recommended award
on the following grounds:
(1) the contract should not have been awarded based on a competitive negotiation
process (Section 3.04.070 of the City Municipal Code) because it qualifies as a
public works project (subject to Section 12.20.010 of the City Municipal Code),
as a result of which it should either be awarded to the low bidder or all bids must
be rejected,
WEULE, BROYLES, BALLARD & MONDO, LLP
Marsha Zeller
May 17, 2002
Page 2
(2) even if this is ultimately determined to be subject to Section 3.04.070, the City
should have used the low bid process rather than a competitive negotiation
process because none of the exceptions mandated by Section 3.04.070(1) applies
to this contract, in that: (1) the equipment is such that suitable technical and
performance specifications are not only available, but have been used by other
municipalities; (2) the City can in fact develop descriptive specifications, and to a
great extent actually did so in this RFP package; and (3) the quality of the
equipment can be accurately determined by reference to their specifications alone;
and
(3) finally, even if it is determined that the RFP procedure was otherwise appropriate,
the City failed to follow its own requirements in recommending an award to
Heisler, including without limitation because:
(1) it failed to properly consider the ratings of the evaluators, which in fact
ranked one ofMicon's proposals (No.1) as the best;
(2) it failed to utilize the stated criteria for award in determining the successful
proposal;
(3) it based the proposed award on criteria not included as part of the RFP
package, eg., by considering site amenities such as benches and training
programs, not included as part of the stated criteria for award;
(4) it failed to consider price, when comparing the proposals, in particular the
fact that Micon's bid is between $105,000 to $200,000 lower than the
Heisler proposal, depending on which proposal you look at; Micon's
proposal was the highest ranked of all 8 proposals; and Micon's proposal
shows the lowest cost per activity, even using the City staff's questionable
methodology for comparing the proposals;
(5) it failed to disqualify the Heisler proposal for failing to participate in the
mandatory job walk; and
(6) it failed to recommend award to the "lowest and least" bidder as required
by the code.
In connection with the above, and by way of further explanation, I am enclosing a copy of
a memorandum from Kevin Spence, a representative of Miracle Playground, which addresses the
City's intemal report on which the recommendation is based.
.
WEULE, BROYLES, BALLARD & MONDO, LLP
Marsha Zeller
May 17, 2002
Page 3
We sincerely hope that your office will reconsider its recommendation in this matter and either
recommend that Micon be awarded the contract or, alternatively, recommend that the proposals
be rejected and the contract re-bid. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Sincerely,
;;;:BR~iiT~
M. Colleen Weule
cc: Micon Construction
City Attorney's office (attention: Houston Carlisle)
mcw\micon\general\city 02
May-OH2
05: 19pm
From-City of San B.rnardino Finane.\Pureha'ii +9093845043
'l"':~"",
''''''1'
:,ij,:li,1
"~)l<<;~
1~J.!;1
~~~~7
m-N
~>}!j..l':
',I._~"V
~~.q:
:;~'1!~li~
i;i~l~
"":l,;l
"~~l.l,
tp.i!~i
l,,,,,ft
iZR
:;,~
::~;.
.~,t:q:"'I
:~E"l
~(J)l~
~m$:
i~~.~
)~~\:
f-S:.(
'~iSi);
,,'o;:j
::lCP~
'1.{li!.
,&""
>If'!'...:
\"'"
,liliI
~n/;;';
nN~
~
~
.-'
......,J
:f~~,:
\"j:l)~
~)!tl
1!.I\lI'1
~"'Q I
~'TI:r
:j,....r.:
"~
"
'i""!!
.,Q:!
""',
~l:::J)
....;'1
'In~
~13i,
~,~(.
i""rl.'
~'I'
:f.i.:
I,St
r~.,
i~t
~('):'"
.~~~
l).~~";
'LSI"
'B~
:'''''~
:!~
:;]':j'''::':
''"".
~!jl':'; ':~
"., "
,i~,'
:~~ :J~
r:I,~'1
"'d:!
i!l~
"~l1rf'
:~~~~,!
.~,......"
~r~j
~-F."l
'~"
: I
''co
.,....,
:Ii',,"),
~:itli
~;:%!
~~.""
;'1'
'u
f.t~'lr
:t(dll
'l!~;
~
\t,Iif::
-hi...
ID~;
:t;Ij!;
:~:\
"':~
".
."
;",ii;
r:(~!
h' >:' ~ ,I
'b"
jW;
11~i
,t,,~
t.,fi~
m
;;:
'It""'It""r-
.Q. (,&> N --J. c:
~
o
;0
CXl<n<nCXl
"'ol
Cl)
r;b1~ .
(:'))" "1"'11'
I m~,
. '\ CO ClO.
.n~ t~~
,,:....
:::rJ\
Cl)al""
l~
li\l;:
~....
,*~
. !'.ill
~~..
'~~;
coi
"~i;
',.
.
" .
T-072 P.002/038 F-IOS
"ll tll
.. ~
;:l. ..
::J ..
II> Q.
~
o '"
<I> '"
3" S-
CI)
1il
bJQ~=!~
~'co~e
'" C/) -.m II>
- -rQ ;:,,:;..
22=-0
!lS4 Q)
_.~ C')
0" ::s
~ 2!.. (':l
;oo",r-
Q)o;:r~
D 1>> I:; Q..
iill!l.s:l.",
.. "'"
e caw
o ","l;;l
'" CI)
s;:
~-
!:l-
CD
s;:
[
CD
;a;
@
'"
Of
Cl
III
3'
III
1il
CD
"
~
~
:1>0-0
"' III iii
en<,<
~ ~ ~
III ::!.
'" Cl.
'"
l>>
=
co
3
~
o
o
'"
l!l.
"
:?:.
"
o
o
..
l!l.
"
C/)-c
"l;l III
~;o.
~
CD'
en
s;:
n'
o
;;:1
"'"
~
0:::
m
z
c
o
;:0
!i:
('i'
o
OJ
I!S
!::
8'
;;:1
~
o
..
'"
a
'"
b;"if
'" -.
o.!!!.
'" ..
'" ...
III
"l;;l
..
. Se'nt By:' Miracle Playground Sales Southw; 909 676 8706;
May.17.02 12:03PM;
Page 1/11
...
5
GI
.
o
c:
Z
l:J
~
m
'"
FAX
From:
Total Pages:
Subject:
May 17, 2002
Mayor - City of San Bernardino
Common Council Members - City of San Bernardino
City Manager - City of San Bernardino
Kevin Spence - Miracle Playground Sales
11
RFP F02-035 Upgrade of Playground Equipment at 11 Park Sites
Date:
To:
On Monday, May 20,2002 the Mayor and Common Council are going to be asked to approve
spending $725,000 with Heisler/Dave Bang to upgrade 11 City of San Bernardino park sites by
Lemuel Randolph, Director of Parks and Recreation Department This dollar figure represents
at least $105,549.98 or 17% more than the next desirable bid and over $200,000 more than the
lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
The proposal submitted for approval will try to show you that choosing the most expensive bid in
this process is in the best interest of the City. This is being done by only showing the
information that supports the above conclusion and intentionally leaves out the information that
clearly shows that this is not in the best interest of the City or the taxpayers.
Attached is a memorandum from Marsha Zeller, Purchasing Manager to Lemuel Randolph,
recommending specifically how to approach the council with this award. I think you will find that
most of the text in the "Request for Council Action" that you have received is taken directly from
this document with some intentional omissions.
Some of the glaring statements and omissions include (taken verbatim from the document):
. "As stated in the proposal, we will award based on criteria stated and recommend award
to the lowest and best bidder (as referenced in section 3.04.070 goods/equipment and
3.04.085 service.) We need to clearly define to Council why our recommendation
represents the /;!!!j; bidder, because the protestors will concentrate that they are the
lowest and best bid."
Arizona
Miracle Playground Sales SW
1146 N. Mesa Drive
Suite 102, #136
Mesa AZ. 85201
(800) 905-1411 Toll Free Phone
(877) 905-1411 Toll Free Fax
Sales@Miracleplayground.com
Nevada
Miracle Playground Sales SW
2657 Windmill Parkway #195
Henderson. NV 89074
(800) 905.1411 Toll Free Phone
(877) 905.1411 Toll Free Fax
Saies@Miracleplayground.com
California
Miracle Playground Sales
27464 Commerce Center Drive
Suite I
Temecula, CA 92590
(800) 264-7225 Toll Free Phone
(909) 676-8706 Fax
Sales@Miracleplayground.com
-
Sent By: 'Miracle Playground Sales Soutnw; 909 676 8706;
May-17-02 12:04PM;
Page 2/11
MIRACLE
'D
S
5
c:
z
~
~
...
l:
i:::'!::!:1,:r:1:':;:
::.'(, '.I::~,:1i
. ! . I; ~, !
"',.''':;;:
(;.I~'I!
.. ,
..
FAX
o Per the RFP documents and this letter, the bid should be awarded to the
lowest and best bid. Per state law, the bid must be awarded to the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder. which Is clearly not Heisler.
. "During the presentations and during the evaluation process, the prices of the proposals
were not discussed. The three Parks Commission Representatives had no prior review,
knowledge, or exposure to any of the proposals or presenters. They also had no
knowledge of the prices that were submitted:'
o It is clear from this statement that price was never disclosed or evaluated by
all the (lommittee memben as one of the parametel'$ of the bid even though
the bid documents clearly state that is a basis for award and one of the
specific evaluation criteria listed. How can you determine If this Is In the
best interest of the City If you don't know how much it costs? In a later cost
analysis (whIch was not di:sclosed to Council) It clearly shows that Heisler is
NOT the best bid for the city on a cost per activity basis or total cost basis.
. "Of the top three Proposers, the Heisler proposal provides the most activities with the
best variety of play value. This is the most subjective item, in that what counts as an
activity mayor may not be an interest of high value to Children at the playground. And
there are variances between the vendors as to what they consider an "activity."... For the
reasons above, I would stay away from using this justification as much as possible."
o First, the play value of a playground can be subjective, but there are ways to
compare Item for item. The committee has no written documentation
showing that any kind of "play value" comparison was ever done even
though it is listed as a specific evaluation criteria. Second, the committee
membel'$, specifically John Tucker and Manha Zeller, did verify the activity
counts using "unlvenal" criteria so the counts should be an apples to
apples comparison.
. "I am providing the numbers and scenario below, to assist you in having a clear picture
of how and what, in the City's view, are the costs. These numbers are not designed to
either substantiate or refute the award or protests. I strongly recommend that they
should not be included in the new staff report, because there is so much incollsistency
between the various parties and what the numbers shouid be." (this section was even
bolded)
ArIzona
Miracle Playground Sales SW
1146 N. Mesa Drive
Sune 102, #136
Mesa t>:Z 85201
(800) 905-1411 Toll Free Phone
(877) 905-1411 Toll Free Fax
Sales@Miracleplayground_com
Nevada
Miracle Playground Sales SW
2657 Windmill Parkway #195
Henderson. NV 89074
(BOO) 905-1411 Toll Free Phone
(B77) 905-1411 Toll Free Fax
Sales@Miracleplayground.com
California
Miracle Playground Sales
27464 Commerce Center Drive
Suite I
Temecula, CA 92590
(BOO) 264-7225 Toll Free Phone
(909) 676-8706 Fax
sales@Miracleplayground.com
Sent By: Miracle Playground Sales Southw; 909 676 8706;
May.17.02 12:04PM;
Page 3111
FAX
o The staff does not want to show you the numbers because it clearly
demonstrates (based on their "universal" counts, not the manufacturers)
that the bid they are recommending is NOT in the best interest of the city
from a cost per aGtivity or total Gast basis. The small difference and activity
counts and other Items they list as "extras" do not Justify spending at least
$105,000 more.
. "Based on previous purchases. the cost to provide and install the 22 benches and 11
.Welcome" signs is about $18,265.00 (benches at $465.00 each, and signs at $815).
The costs of negotiating with the other vendors to change the designs cannot be
accurately determined at this time."
o First, our proposals did Include welcome signs. which were clearly shown
on our bid documents and was verbally stated to the committee at our
presentation. SeGond, benGhes were not II requirement of the bid, and since
this was a bid for playground equipment, not site furnishings, we did not
include them. At the committee presentation we were asked if we would be
willing to include benches and we answered yes - which was not mentioned
in this document. There Is no cost up charge to the City to add 22 benches
to our proposal.
a Finally the City could have easily obtained prices for these items with a
simple phone call or a quick look back at heir reGards - on 12/13/01 the City
of San Bernardino ordered benches from us at a cost of $260.00 each.
Arizona
Miracle Playground Sales SW
1146 N. Mesa Drive
Su~e 102. #136
Mesa AZ 85201
(800) 905.1411 Toll Free Phone
(877) 905.1411 Toll Free Fax
Sales@Miracleplayground.com
Nevada
Miracle Playground Sales SW
2657 Windmill Parkway #195
Henderson, NV 89074
(800) 905-1411 Toll Free Phone
(877) 905-1411 Toll Free Fax
Sales@Miracleplayground.com
California
Miracle Playground Sales
27464 Commerce Center Drive
Su~1
Temecula, CA 92590
(800) 264.7226 Toll Free Phone
(909) 678-8706 Fax
Sales@Miracleplayground.com
Sent By: Mlrecle Playground Sales Southw; 909 676 8706;
May-17-02 12:04PM;
Page 4/11
FAX
"The Prices were as follows:
Vendor Heisler Micon #1 Micon #2 Cssron
Jl.id Price $725,000.00 $619.505.02 - $553.649.47 $698.900.00
Less Site (18,265.00)
Amenities
Subtotal $706,735.00 $619.505,9.2 $553.649.47 $698,900.00
# Activities 221 210 185 208
Price per 3197.90" 2948.60' 2992.70' 3475.96"
Activitv ..
.. Amount does not include any cost associated with the redesign changes, as they may
vary. A Final actual cost per activity, for these vendors cannot be determined.
""Final price per activity. proposal does not require any further changes."
o First, our proposal includes retrofit parts and installation at Encanto Park so
our component count is under represented by -4 activities. Second, The
Heisler bid does not include the parts and installation for Encanto Parle so It
Is NOT final. There wllf be an additional cost from Heisler to fix Encanto.
Third, this clearly shows Mlcon #1 was the lowest cost per activity. This
does not show that Mlcon #3 was the lowest bid received out of all 8 and
was a full $200,000 less than the Heisler bid. Finally, at the presentations,
the committee asked If we were wlllfng to redesign Tom Gould or other
parks as needed, we answered emphatically yes.
The bottom line here is that either the Playground selection committee as a whole or one or
more individuals in the selection process are trying to steer you into spending significantly
more money than is required for less playground equipment and variety. The analysis is not
complete. The committee did not perform due diligence in evaluating the bids and they have
intentionally misrepresented and omitted information to make this look appropriate. In doing
so, not only do they not have the best interests of the City and taxpayers mind, they are
potentially exposing the City to significant legal risk from claims from the other vendors.
There have been several formal protests filed on this bid and the City has not responded to
any of the protestors as required by the bid documents.
ArIzona
Miracle Playground Sales SW
1146 N. Mesa Drive
Su~e 102. #136
Mesa AZ. 85201
(800) 905-1411 Toll Free Phone
(877) 905.1411 Toll Free Fax
Sales@Miracleplayground.com
Navad.
Miracle Playground Sales SW
2657 Windmlll Parkway #195
Henderson. NV 89074
(600) 905-1411 Toll Free Phone
(677) 905.1411 Toll Free Fax
Sales@Mlraclepleyground.com
California
Miracle Playground Sales
27464 Commerce Center Drive
Suite I
Temeeula. CA 92590
(600) 264-7225 Toll Free Phone
(909) 676.a706 Fax
Sales@Miracleplayground.com
r-
.Sent By~ Miracle Playground Sales Southw; 909 676 8706;
May-17-02 12:05PM;
Page 5/11
FAX
I think at this point it is clear that the Playground selection committee cannot make an
unbiased, fair, complete report and request that City Council either evaluate this proposal
directly or appoint a new commission to re-evaluate prior to award.
I will have a detailed analysis and rebuttal of Mr. Randolph's "Request for Council Action" to
you via email and Fax late this afternoon.
Thank you for your time attention to this important matter.
Please do not hesitate to call me with any Questions.
Al'b:on,
Miracle Playground Sales SW
1146 N. Mesa Drive
Su~e 102, #136
Mesa /I\Z. 86201
(800) 905-1411 Toll Free Phone
(877) 905-1411 Toll Free Fax
Sales@Miracleplayground.com
Nev,dp
Miracle Playground Sales SW
2657 Windmill Parkway #195
Henderson, NV 69074
(800) 905.1411 Toll Free Phone
(877) 905.1411 Toll Free Fax
Seles@Mireclepleygl'ourld.com
California
Miracle Playground Sales
27464 Commence Center Drive
Suite I
Temecula. CA 92590
(800) 264-7225 Toll Free Phone
(909) 676.8706 Fax
Sales@Miracleplayground.com
. Sent 'By: Miracle Playground Sales Southw; 909 676 8706;
May.17-02 12:05PM;
Page 6/11
CITY OF SANBERNARDINO
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
Lemuel Randolph, Director Parks and Recreation Department
FROM:
Marsha Zeller, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Evaluation Committee Recommendations "F02-035 Upgrade of
Playground Equipment at 11 Park Sites"
DATE:
May 9, 2002
On February 14, 2002, the City received 8 responses from 5 separate vendors
for proposal F02-035, to upgrade the playground equipment at 11 City Park
sites.
These Proposals were subjected to an initial evaluation process that included a
review of all mandatory requirements in the proposal submissions, and
verification of valid California Contractor Licenses. Vendors were notified of any
missing information and requested to supply the information. Missing
information was received and reviewed-
Evaluators were requested to review all eight proposals independently and rank
the proposals from first (1~ to eight (8"') place based on the following criteria as
referenced in the proposal.
The City Proposal Analysis Group will independently read, review and evaluale
each proposal and selection will be made on the basis of the criteria listed below.
The firms submitting proposals shall Include with that proposal statements on the
following:
A. Variety and type of playground equipment.
B. experience of vendor and/or sub-contractor (if used).
C. Experience and knowledge In the design of similar playground
slructums.
D. Wamlnty offered.
E. Cost of services; (I.e., price propOSal)
The Proposal Anaiysis Group will rate each proposal and develop a composite
rating which Indicates the group's collective ranking of the highest rated proposals
in a descending order. AI this point, the Proposal Analysis Group may conduct
interviews with IID!.Y. the top ranked firms, usually the top three depending upon the
number of proposals received. The Proposal Analysis Group will conduct all
subsequent negotiations and will make a recommendation for the contract award.
. Sent 'By:' Mlracle Playground Sales Southw; 909 676 8706;
May.17-02 12:05PM;
Page 7/11
"
Memo re: Recommendation on F02-035
Heisler Landscape
page 2 of 6
Another key point that should be made in the staff report is this. solicitation was a
proposal and not a bid_ As stated in the proposal we will award based on the
criteria stated and recommend for award the lowest and best bidder (as
referenced in section 3,04.070 goods/equipment and 3.04.085 service). We
need to clearly define to Council why our recommendation represents the bi!!!
bidder, because the protestors will concentrate that they are the lowest and best
bid.
Another point to establish is that each. of these proposals represents a single
source procurement (although similar suitable products are available from
multiple vendors, the bids are unique and cannot be awarded only on the basis
of price.)
The evaluation committee recommended that the top four proposals (two
separate options from the same vendor) which resulted in requests for
presentations from three separate companies. The vendors asked to provide a
presentation of their proposal were Heisler Landscape, Micon Construction, and
Casron Services.
The proposals that did not receive further consideration were 2 separate product
lines from WF Construction, the proposal from Park Specialties, and the third
Option from Micon. Two proposals were lacking sufficient playground references,
one design had substantially fewer activities, and the other proposal was over
the budget by $20,000.
The Proposal Analysis Group consisted of, Dan Ustation, John Tucker, 3
representatives of the Parks' Commission, and myself. We met on April 2, to
hear presentations from the three top Proposers for the F02-035 Upgrade of
Playground Equipment at 11 Parks. Each proposer was given one hour to
present their proposals and answer any questions the group had regarding their
proposals.
Based on the presentations and committee discussion afterwards, the
Proposal Analysis Group unanimously recommended that the award for
this proposal to Heisler Landscape/Dave Bang Associates/Playworld
Systems be forwarded to Council for their final approval and award.
After the presentations concluded, the Proposal Analysis Group convened to
discuss the proposals and prepare a recommendation for award. During the
presentations and during the evaluation process, the prices of the proposals
were not discussed. The three Parks Commission Representatives had no prior
review, knowledge, or exposure to any of the proposals or the presenters. They
also had no knowledge of the prices that were submitted.
The Heisler Landscape proposal Included important site amenities suell as
benches and sign age that the other proposals did not include. Vendors
. Sent' By' Mlracle Playground Sales Southw; 909 676 B706;
May-17-02 12:06PM;
Page B/11
Memo re: Recommendation on F02-035
Heisler Landscape
page 3 of 6
were allowed to design and include any products and items that would provide a
quality playground. Safety and security of the children playing is very important.
Providing benches so that adults and caregivers can sit close by and observe
their children is an important safety factor. This feature will encourage more
people to use the playground facilities. The other proposals did not. include
benches or custom identification signage. These "Welcome" signs represent a
symbol of pride for each neighborhood and the City as a whole. If we were to
negotiate with the other Proposers the cost would increase for the bids.
Heisler Landscape was the only proposal that will not require any
reconfiguratlon and/or negotiations. The Heisler proposal was complete and
did not require any changes or additional negotiations. Because of this factor,
the Heisler proposal would require less time to have equipment in place. As we
are approaching the summer playground season, which is the busiest time of
year for the Parks, lead and installation times are critical. Delays In the
completion of the projects and the condition of the current equipment could result
in playgrounds that will be unusable for the majority of the summer season.
Currently there are at least two of these sites that have had most or all of the old
equipment removed because the age and condition of the equipment
represented a serious public safety risk. The committee felt that the solution for
Tom Gould Park, from one proposer did not include enough activities, and was a
step down from the existing park. If this vendor were selected as the awarded
vendor, we would have to redesign Tom Gould Park, at an additional cost. The
vendor was informed of that determination during their presentation.
Furthermore, we had asked that were they seleded we would ask that they add
benches and signage to their proposal as well. The other Proposer's design for
Ann Shirrells Park was not in compliance with the request that the tot area and
general playground areas be separated.
Heisler Landscape, Dave Bang & Associates, and Playworld Systems have
a unique warranty service policy. They are the only Proposer who keeps
"loaner" parts available to send out on a warranty or service problem, until the
new part is installed. No other proposer presented any solution similar to this. In
our past experience with some of the other Proposers equipment, we have had
to wait and staff has had to block off, or remove unusable/unsafe equipment until
replacements can be ordered. and installed. The Heisler Landscape warranty
service policy ensures that our playgrounds are always safe and fully usable.
This is important because a reorder of modular components (as there are 30
different colors) may take between 4-6 weeks before it can be installed.
Heisler Landscape, Dave Bang & Associates, and Playworld Systems have
included in their proposal have Included a one year maintenance and
inspection service from an outside third-party company. There are state
mandates regarding maintenance and inspection services for all playground
areas. The requirement is that a certified Playground Inspector must perform
them at established intervals. We have in-house staff that are certified and
.Sent By: Miracle Playground Sales Southw; 9096768706;
May.17-02 12:06PM;
Page 9/11
-.
Memo re: Recommendation on F02.035
Heisler Landscape
page 4 of 6
perform these inspection services for our playground sites. The advantage of a
third-party analysis is that it frees up the maintenance staff, and is always
performed by professional, insured, licensed, certified and unbiased individuals.
One of the other proposals offered a 3-year quarterly inspection period, but it
was to be performed by the Manufacturer, rather than an un-biased third party
inspector.
Heisler Landscape, Dave Bang & Associates, and Playworld Systems is
providing training to in-house staff. A maintenance and safety seminar,
including comprehensive forms and records keeping materials, will be conducted
with City Park Maintenance Employees that are responsible for the playground
safety and durability.
Heisler Landscape, Dave Bang & Associates, and Playworld Systems
presented the strongest working association. The committee was impressed
with the unified relationship between Heisler Landscape, the installer; the
manufacturer's representative, Dave Bang & Associates; and the manufacturer,
Playworld Systems.
Of the top three Proposere, the Heisler proposal provides the most
activities, with the best variety of play value. This is the most subjective item.
in that what counts as an activity mayor may not be an item of high interest or
value to the children at the playground. And there are variances between
vendors as to what they consider an "activity", A double slide, a single swing, a
rock climbing wall, a steering wheel, an overhead climber, and a panel with a
picture activity, all are considered one activity. For the reasons above, I would
stay away from using this justification as much as possible.
The Hei51er prop05al included activities for a wide range of activities and
ages. This criteria is subjeotlve also, but the committee felt that overall the
designs prepared by Heisler were the most desirable. The proposal included
activities both in modular systems and individual components throughout the
play area. Their designs in some of the smaller parks provided effective use of
the playground space without sacrificing activities, or narrowing the appropriate
age group for the activity. The designs included fewer pieces of equipment that
contained moving parts, which may tend to suffer adversely from the elements
and require replacement or repair sooner than non-moving apparatus.
I am providing the numbers and scenario below, to a88i5t you in having a
clear picture of how and what, in the City's view, are the costs. These
numbere are not designed to either substantiate or refute the award or
protests. I strongly recommend that they should not be included In the new
staff report, because there is so much inconsistency between the various
parties and what the numbers should be.
.-
May-17-02 12:06PM;
_Sent By: 'Miracle Playground Sales Southw; 909 676 8706;
Memo re: Recommendation on F02-035
Heisler Landscape
page 5 of 6
Page 10/11
Because of discrepancies in the numbers from multiple vendors that were
included in the original staff report to Council; on 5.6-02, John Tucker and myself
reviewed the design drawings and counted each site and activity to verify the
vendor counts. Different vendors applied different criteria in the counting of the
actiVities, some counted two part items as a single activity, and others counted
as two activities, John, who is a certified Playground Inspector, verified each
proposal using universal criteria for all design drawings, All counts were taken
from the original CAD drawings submitted, In each vendor's proposal. The Heisler
proposal provided a higher number of play activities compared to the other
vendors a5 referenced below. All vendors were given a count of 1 items for the
evaluation of Encanto Park (see note below). The bidders were instructed,
during the Job Walk, that the existing Miracle playground structure would be
remain. and we would deal directly with Miracle separately to bring the structure
up to current safety requirements. However, Miracle included the changes as
activities in their counts, and the other vendor redesigned the entire playground.
Heisler Nllcon #1 Micon #2 Caeron
~Iavaround Im! Total Tobit Tall!
Ann Shirrell 48 40 39 29
Encanto 1 ,~ r*""" o. ,."
^,
Hudson 49 43 43 33
Lytle Creek 19- 21 14 11
Meadowbrook 11 15 10 ~
Mill Center 19 14 14 ^ 15
NewberT)' 12 12 13 20
~Ison 14 15 ^' 11 18
Nunez 21 16 13 24
Speicher 17 28 21 20
Tom Gould 10 ..
6" 7 24
221 210 185 208
... .-
Note:
. *Tree House structure counted ~s 1 activity, not 3 as listed by vendor
. '*Per revieW 5-6-02 by John Tutlker and myself.
. ... Did not follow instructions anll redesigned complete playground
. .... Included in activity counts: ~lterations to their existing equipment that was
to remain in place. Were instructed at JOb walk that modifications to existing
equipment would be handled at another time.
Based on previous purchases, the' costs to provide and install the 22 benches
and 11 "Welcome" signs is about $18,265,00 (benches at $465 each, and signs
at $615). The costs of negotiating with the other vendors to change the designs
cannot be accurately determined at' this time.
, .
-Sent By: Miracle Playground Sales Southw; 909 676 8706;
May-17-02 12:07PMj
Page 11/11
,.
MemO re: Recommendation on F02-035
Heisler Landscape
page 6 of 6
The Prices were as follows:
Vendor Heisler Micon #1 Micon #2 Casron
Bid price $ 725,000.00 $619,505.02 $553,649.47 $698.900.00
Less site ( 18,265.00)
amenities
Sub-total $ 706.735.00 $619 ,505.02 $~53,649.47 $696,900.00
# of Activities 221 210 185 208
Price per 3197.90" 2948.60' 2992.70. 3475.96"
activity ~.
Note:
*Amount does not Include any cost associated with the redesign changes,
as they may vary. A Final actual price per activity, for these vendors
cannot be determined.
-Final price per activity. Proposal does not require any further changes.
This is a grant-funded project with an approved budget not to exceed $735,000
for all 11 parks. We pay for the playground equipment and are reimbursed from
the State. The cost of the Heisler proposal is $ 725,000.00, which is under the
approved amount, with a $ 10,000. 00 amount for contingencies.
Please let me knoW if there is any other information you need to prepare the
Council Action documents, or if I can answer any questions for you.