NewCityLogo-August2008

Council
Communication

Office of the City Manager

 
 

Date

November 9, 2009

 

Agenda Item No.        56A

Roll Call No.               09-

Communication No.   09-795

Submitted by: Judy A. Bradshaw, Chief of Police

 

 

 

AGENDA HEADING:

 

Accepting Finance Director’s Decision on Appeal of Bid Award Recommendation for Impound Towing and Storage Contract V10-027 to G&S Service, Inc. and Acceptance of G & S Service, Inc. Bid.

 

 

SYNOPSIS:

 

The Impound Towing Contracts with Owen Crist Auto Body and Crow’s Auto Services, Inc. d/b/a Crow Tow (“Crow Tow”) expired May 31, 2009. A bidding process (V09-103) was initiated to identify qualified impound towing contractors for the City. Bidders were allowed to bid either District 1 (West) or District 2 (East) or Both Districts 1 and 2. Proposals were submitted by three qualified vendors for V09-103.

 

Bid V09-103 was rejected by the City Council on August 24, 2009 and staff was instructed to initiate a new bidding process delineating in the specifications that any towing and storage charges incurred by an owner of an impounded vehicle would not exceed the towing and storage charge incurred by the City. Bid V10-027 was then distributed to ten qualified vendors and four proposals were submitted to the City.

 

On October 20, 2009 the Procurement Administrator sent bidders notification that the City staff recommendation to Council was to accept the bid from Crow Tow for both District 1 and District 2.   On October 21, 2009 G & S Service, Inc. filed a timely appeal to that award recommendation from the Procurement Administrator.  The bid instructions provide that appeals from the Procurement Administrator’s award recommendation are decided by the Finance Director.  The Finance Director issued his decision on the appeal on October 23, 2009 that the bid from G & S Service, Inc, was the low compliant bid, for District 1 and District 2, based on a first tow charge, including wrecker, of $20.00.  The Finance Director’s decision is the staff recommendation for award of the bid.  On October 27, 2009 Crow Tow delivered a written appeal from the Finance Director’s decision.  The bid instructions provide that appeals from the Finance Director’s decision be made to the City Council.

 

This Council Communication will provide information relating to the bid analysis and award of bid.  A separate City Manager’s letter to Council will provide information relating to the Crow Tow appeal.

 

Compliance with Bid Requirements

 

Specifications

District 1

District 2

Owen Crist

Compliance

G&S

Compliance

Crow Tow

Compliance

Hanifen

Compliance

Location in City

City Limits

City Limits

Yes District 1 only

Yes

Yes

Non compliant

Experience

2 years

2 years

Yes District 1 only

Yes

Yes

 

Zoning

Cert. Occupancy Salvage Cert.

Cert. Occupancy Salvage Cert.

Yes District 1 only

Yes

Yes

 

Storage Outside

175 Spaces

150 Spaces

Yes District 1 only

Yes

Yes

 

Storage Inside

10 Spaces

10 Spaces

Yes District 1 only

Yes

Yes

 

Auction spaces

110 Spaces

110 Spaces

Yes District 1 only

Yes

Yes

 

One ton Wreckers

4

3

Yes District 1 only

Yes

Yes

 

Flatbeds

2

2

Yes District 1 only

Yes

Yes

 

Semi Truck wrecker

1

1

Yes District 1 only

Yes

Yes

 

Licensed drivers

6

6

Yes District 1 only

Yes

Yes

 

 

Staff then determined that the low dollar bid for both District 1 and District 2 was submitted by Crow Tow, based upon an understanding that the first tow bid charge for Crow Tow was $39.90 and the G & S Service, Inc. first tow charge would be $70.00 (see Table 1 below).  After evaluation of all proposals, it was recommended by the police department that the option that was in the best interest of the City and the vehicle owners is to award the Impound Towing and Storage contract to one vendor.

 

Table 1

Vendors Options

Owen Crist  Auto Body Inc.

G&S Services

Crow Auto Service Inc.

Hanifen

 

 

 

 

 

Total Cost Value

 

 

 

 

District 1

 $    497,773.80

 $     443,937.00

 $    413,751.60

N/A

District 2

 $                      -  

 $     239,845.00

 $    236,723.10

N/A

Total

 

 $     683,782.00

 &   650,474.70

 N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance to Bid

Compliant for District 1

Compliant

Compliant

Non Compliant

 

Under the bid specifications, the formula for determining the cost of each bid proposal relies in part on the Line 1 amount of the Pricing Worksheet (see Attachment 3) found in Bid Sections 10 and 11.   The G & S Service bid had a discrepancy between the amount submitted for lines 1 and 15, which staff anticipated should be the same, and was the same for all other bidders, so G &S Service, Inc. was contacted to provide clarification as to the amount to be charged for a first tow with a wrecker. G&S Service, Inc. advised City staff that their charge would be a combined total of line 1 ($20) and line 15 ($50) for the normal charge for the first towing of a vehicle.  The above calculations were based upon the cost amounts submitted by the participating vendors, which in the case of Owen Crist Auto Body and Crow Tow was the dollar cost proposed on line 1 of Sections 10 and 11 of the bid specifications. In the case of G&S Service, Inc. the combined totals of Line 1 and Line 15 of Sections 10 and 11, were used as the Line 1 total cost.

 

Upon notification of the vendors that the low cost compliant bidder was Crow Tow, G&S Service, Inc. filed a written appeal through their Attorney Patrick W. O’Bryan (see Attachment 1). In this appeal, G & S Service, Inc. asserted that the $70.00 cost for the normal charge for the first towing of a vehicle in the City limits was incorrect and that the City should be calculating the cost at $50.00 delineated on line 15 of Sections 10 and 11 of the bid specifications. The formula using the $50.00 cost computed as follows: (See Table 2 below)

 

Table 2

Vendors Options

Owen Crist  Auto Body Inc.

G&S Services

Crow Auto Service Inc.

Hanifen

 

 

 

 

 

Total Cost Value

 

 

 

 

District 1

 $    497,773.80

 $     349,457.00

 $    413,751.60

N/A

District 2

 $                      -  

 $     191,465.00

 $    236,723.10

N/A

Total

 

 $     540,922.00

 &   650,474.70

 N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance to Bid

Compliant for District 1

Compliant

Compliant

Non Compliant

 

Pursuant to the bid instructions, the appeal was decided by the City Finance Director, who reviewed the bidding process and all proposals and bidding documents. His decision is attached to this Council Communication (see Attachment 3). In summary, it was the decision of the City Finance Director that the $20   amount listed in Line 1 by G&S Service was their bid price for the normal charge for the first towing of a vehicle. Recalculating the formula defined in the bid specifications in Section 9.5 reveals the following low cost amount for G&S Services: (See Hearing Officer’s Findings and Table 3 below).

 

Hearing Officer’s Findings

 

G&S Services                          District 1                     Crow Auto Services Incorporated     

793 x $20.00 = $15,860                                              793 x $39.90 = $31,640.70

32 x $3.00 x 793 = $76,128                                        32 x $6.00 x 793 = $152,256

50 x $35.00 = $1,750                                                  50 x $45.00 = $2,250

3931 x $20.00 = $78,620                                            3931 x $39.90 = $156,846.90

3 x $3 x 3931 = $35,379                                             3 x $6 x 3931 = $70,758

= $207,737 (low bid)                                                  = $413,751.60

 

G&S Services                          District 2                     Crow Auto Services Incorporated     

547 x $20.00 = $10,940                                              547 x $39.90 = $21,825.30

32 x $3.00 x 547 = $52,512                                        32 x $6.00 x 547 = $105,024

33 x $35.00 = $1,155                                                  33 x $45.00 = $1,485

1872 x $20.00 = $37,440                                            1872 x $39.90 = $74,692.80

3 x $3 x 1872 = $16,848                                             3 x $6 x 1872 = $33,696

= $118,895 (low bid)                                                  = $236,723.10

 

Table 3

Vendors Options

Owen Crist  Auto Body Inc.

G&S Services

Crow Auto Service Inc.

Hanifen

Total Cost Value

 

 

 

 

District 1

 $    497,773.80

 $     207,737

 $    413,751.60

N/A

District 2

 $                      -  

 $     118,895

 $    236,723.10

N/A

Total

 

 $     326,632

 $   650,474.70

 N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance to Bid

Compliant for District 1

Compliant District 1 and 2

Compliant District 1 and 2

Non Compliant

 

Based upon the appeal decision, the Police and Finance Department’s staff recommends the City Council award the Impound Towing and Storage Contract to G&S Service Inc., 4100 East 16th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50313, owner Glen Mikel for both District 1 and 2.

 

The term of this contract is for thirty six months renewable for two additional twelve month periods.

 

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

 

Amount:  $41,000. Payment to the successful bidder is to be approximately $326,632 annually, but considering the offsetting revenues from auction proceeds and the State of Iowa, the net amount provided in the Police Department budget will be approximately $41,000 per year.

 

Funding Source: GE001, POL040400, FY2010 Recommended Budget, page 229.

 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:  

 

The expiration of the Impound Towing and Storage Contract in May 2009 generated two bidding processes. The first bid V09-103 was rejected by the City Council after they reviewed the specifications and determined the specifications should reflect the stipulation that any vehicle owner in the City of Des Moines having their vehicle impounded should not be charged a towing and storage fee that exceeded the same charge contractually applied to the City. The specifications were changed to document the Council’s request and another bidding document V10-027 was sent to qualified vendors. Ten vendors received the bidding document and four responded with valid proposals.

 

One of the vendors was Hanifen Company Incorporated. This company was disqualified because they failed to comply with Section 4.1 of the specifications that requires the vendor to be located within the boundaries of the City of Des Moines, Iowa.

 

The three remaining vendors were Owen Crist Auto Body, G&S Services, Inc., and Crow’s Auto Service, Inc. d/b/a Crow Tow (“Crow Tow”).  After an appeal by G & S Service to the City Finance Director, the compliant low dollar bidder for both District 1 and District 2 was determined to be G&S Service, Inc.

 

In the past, the Council has approved two towing and storage vendors for the City. The advantage to this arrangement is the ability for each vendor to assist the other during high volume towing trips being dispatched on one side of the City. The disadvantage of this arrangement is the disparity of towing and storage fees charged to the public. Currently it costs less to have your vehicle impounded on one side of the City rather than the other and the same result will occur if two vendors are used. This also means two separate sets of impound records and two auction sales in separate locations. All of these disadvantages disappear when the City retains one vendor because all vehicles and sales will be located and priced at one site. The single vendor awarded this contract will be maintaining equipment and personnel requirements for both districts.

 

There have been incidents in the past when towing contractors have failed to meet their contract requirements and the City was forced to take emergency contractual steps to alleviate the volume of impounded vehicles. If this were to be experienced during this new contract term, action to relieve the above situation will be in accordance with the authority of the City Procurement Ordinance to quickly contract with another qualified towing and storage vendor in cases of an operational emergency. Removing inoperable vehicles to allow safe access and utilization of City streets and freeways is a high priority for the police department and well being of the general public.

 

For these reasons, staff believes that it is in the best interest of the City, and is therefore recommending that the City Council award the Impound Towing and Storage Contract to G&S Services Incorporated 4100 East 16th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50313, owner Glen Mikel for both District 1 and 2.

 

The term of this contract is for thirty six months renewable for two additional twelve month periods.

 

 

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION(S):

 

Date: August 24, 2009

 

Roll Call Number:  09-1603

 

Action:              Rejection of impounded vehicle towing and storage bids and directing Procurement Administrator to reissue invitation to bid with revised bid specifications.  (Council Communication No.  09-613)  Moved by Vlassis to adopt and expedite the process if possible.  Motion Carried 7-0.

 

Date: August 10, 2009

 

Roll Call Number:  09-1509

 

Action:              Bids from G & S Services Inc. (Glen Mikel, Owner/President) and Crow’s Automotive Services d/b/a Crow Tow (Randy Crow, President) to furnish impounded vehicle towing and storage services for use by the Police Department, estimated cost $522,209.  (Nine bids mailed, three received).  (Council Communication No.  09-547

) Moved by Coleman to continue to August 24, 2009 meeting and refer to City Manager for additional information regarding citizen fees being considered in bid process.  Motion Carried 7-0.

 

 

BOARD/COMMISSION ACTION(S): NONE

 

 

ANTICIPATED ACTIONS AND FUTURE COMMITMENTS:

 

 

For more information on this and other agenda items, please call the City Clerk’s Office at 515-283-4209 or visit the Clerk’s Office on the second floor of City Hall, 400 Robert D. Ray Drive.  Council agendas are available to the public at the City Clerk’s Office on Thursday afternoon preceding Monday’s Council meeting. Citizens can also request to receive meeting notices and agendas by email by calling the Clerk’s Office or sending their request via email to cityclerk@dmgov.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1
 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2

 

Review and Decision of appeal on intent to award Sealed Bid No. V10 - 027 to Crow Tow for Districts 1 & 2.

 

Mr. Patrick W. O’Bryan, of the O’Bryan Law Firm, on behalf of G & S Service, Inc., submitted a letter dated October 21, 2009, appealing the recommendation of Michael L. Valen, Procurement Administrator, to award to Crow Tow District 1 and 2 Towing Service contracts based on bid prices submitted on Bid V10 – 027.  The appeal asserts an error was made in the calculation of costs based on the submitted bid prices of G & S Service, Inc.

The primary purpose of the City using a competitive bid process is to attain the lowest compliant cost for the anticipated purchase of goods and services and to obtain and assess those costs with no bias.  In this instance, G & S Service, Inc. is claiming that the Procurement Administrator incorrectly calculated the extensions of price based on volumes which were explicitly described in Section 9.5 (as corrected by notification on September 28, 2009) of the bid document and reproduced below:

City Charge

Total

District 1

Owner Charge

Total

793 x Line 1 (page 10 )

A

 

3931 x Line 1 (page 10)

D

32 x Line 3 (page 10) x 793

B

 

3 x Line 3 (page 10) x 3933

E

50 x Line 6 (page 10)

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total cost value

A+B+C+D+E

 

 

 

 

City Charge

Total

District 2

Owner Charge

Total

547 x Line 1 (page 11 )

A

 

1872 x Line 1 (page 10)

D

32 x Line 3 (page 11) x 547

B

 

3 x Line 3 (page 10) x 1872

E

33 x Line 6 (page 11)

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total cost value

A+B+C+D+E

 

 

 

 

The City intended to award the bid based on prices submitted on lines 1,3, & 6 on pages 10 and 11 of the bid document reflecting likely costs to be incurred by the City and related private parties.  The City chose to ask for prices by District to allow more bidders to participate who may not have sufficient facilities or operational capacity to service the entire City.  The prices when extended by probable volumes (as supplied in Section 9.5) are to be a reflection of what the anticipated City and Owner costs would be over the life of the contract.

 

In Sections 10.0 and 11.0 of the bid document the City also requested pricing for a variety of other services such as unlocking doors, winching a vehicle, towing a semi-truck, towing using a flatbed, etc.  The lowest compliant bidder based on projected costs of services from prices on lines 1, 3, and 6 would be required to charge those prices for those services.

 

The appellant in their notice of appeal provided their own calculation of the bid but used line 15 rates rather than line 1 rates indicating that the line 1 rate was the charge to go to the scene but not hooking up either a wrecker or a flatbed.  If that were true then either all of the other “non-towing” rates were understated by $20 or those rates also included the $20 line 1 rate which would make the line 1 rate meaningless to include.  The line 1 description in the bid document clearly indicates the City was asking what the towing rate price would be ( “What is the normal charge for the first towing of a vehicle in the City limits?”) and since this is a bid to determine cost to the City (and private party) and Line 1 is indicated in Section 9.5 as the manner in which the City would determine lowest cost it is clear that the City was asking for the typical cost to tow a vehicle and was not asking for the cost to just show up.

After the Procurement Administrator opened and announced the bid prices but before the bids were evaluated the Procurement Administrator contacted G&S Service, Inc. seeking clarification as to whether the Line 1 price ($20) was correct or if it was to be added to the Line 15 price ($50).  The Procurement Administrator reports that the verbal answer from G&S Service, Inc. to the question, “How much will you charge for towing a vehicle, $20 or $70?”  The response he received was $70 and that is what was used in the staff evaluation of the bids.   There is no written documentation regarding the conversation.  The appeal indicates they are not to be added together.

Secondly, the appellant claims a windfall would be realized by the other two bidders because they would use their flatbed trucks to do their towing which has a higher tow rate while G & S bid the same rate whether a wrecker or a flatbed is utilized.  It is my understanding that the Police Department, through its years of experience, determines whether a wrecker or a flatbed is needed and then requests the appropriate tow vehicle.

In conclusion, I recommend that the bids be evaluated on the prices submitted and calculated in the manner as clearly set out in the bid document.  As such, the results are as follows:

District             Line                 G&S                Crow Tow

                             1                    1                   $20.00                  $39.90

                             1                    3                   $  3.00                  $  6.00

                             1                    6                   $35.00                  $45.00

                             2                    1                   $20.00                  $39.90

                             2                    3                   $  3.00                  $  3.00

                             2                    6                   $35.00                  $45.00

 

Applying these prices to the bid matrix yields the following results:

 

G&S District 1                                     Crow Tow District 1

793 x $20.00= $15,860                                   793 x $39.90= $31,640.70

32 x $3.00 x 793= $76,128                             32 x $6.00 x 793= $152,256

50 x $35.00= $1,750                           50 x $45.00= $2,250

3931 x $20.00= $78,620                                 3931 x $39.90= $156,846.90

3 x $3 x 3931= $35,379                                  3 x $6 x 3931= $70,758

= $207,737 (low bid)                           = $413,751.60

 

G&S District 2                                     Crow Tow District 2

547 x $20.00= $10,940                                   547 x $39.90= $21,825.30

32 x $3.00 x 547= $52,512                             32 x $6.00 x 547= $105,024

33 x $35.00= $1,155                           33 x $45.00= $1,485

1872 x $20.00= $37,440                                 1872 x $39.90= $74,692.80

3 x $3 x 1872= $16,848                                  3 x $6 x 1872= $33,696

= $118,895 (low bid)                           = $236,723.10

 

The low compliant bidder is G & S Service, Inc. for Districts 1 and 2 based on a cost of $326,632 with an applicable wrecker towing charge of $20 which is to be used in billings to the City and associated private parties.

 

 

Allen McKinley

Finance Director

City of Des Moines, IA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3

 

Section 10.0

Impound Towing and Storage Pricing Worksheet

For

District 1 West Bid

 

Only bids in which the vehicle owner’s cost does not exceed the City’s cost for each and every Line in sections 10 and 11 Pricing Worksheets will be considered for the contract award.

 

Cost Topic

Dollar Charge to the City

Dollar Charge to the Vehicle Owner

Line

1

What is the normal charge for the first towing of a vehicle in the City limits?

 

 

Line 2

What is the normal charge for the second towing of a vehicle in the City limits?

 

 

Line 3

What is the normal charge for storing a vehicle outdoors for 24 hours?

 

 

Line 4

What is the normal charge for storing a vehicle indoors for 24 hours?

 

 

Line 5

What is the normal charge for storing a motorcycle for 24 hours?

 

 

Line 6

What will be the hourly charge for clearing the streets of parked vehicles?

 

 

Line

7

What will be the daily charge for storing a vehicle for an extended period of time?

 

 

 

What will be the individual cost per vehicle to satisfy the below listed supplemental charges?

 

 

Line 8

Unlocking car doors?

 

 

Line 9

Winching a vehicle?

 

 

Line 10

Unlocking linkage to transmission?

 

 

Line 11

Rehooking?

 

 

Line 12

Dolly usage?

 

 

Line 13

Towing a semi-truck?

 

 

Line 14

Towing a semi-trailer?

 

 

Line

15

Charge for towing vehicle with a wrecker?

 

 

Lines

16

Charge for towing a vehicle with a flatbed?