Laserfiche WebLink
r JUN 13 `1969 <br />BOOK.77 P,g E lu <br />Director Dean wished to state for the record that staff did <br />not recommend Caterpillar, they recommended Trojan as the one to <br />purchase. <br />Commissioner Bird advised that he plans to vote against the <br />Motion. He felt the bidding process was followed appropriately <br />and believed we need to send out the message that this county will <br />accept the low bid if it meets specifications. He is convinced <br />that the low bidder came close enough with their Fiat -Allis <br />equipment and should receive the bid. <br />Chairman Wheeler pointed out that we do not know how much <br />this EMS system costs, and he felt, in fairness to all the <br />bidders, that the specifications should be revisited. <br />Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the cost of the rebid <br />process, and Purchasing Manager Mascola felt that including staff <br />effort, re -advertising, etc., it could be roughly $400. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. <br />It was voted on and carried 3 to 2 with Commis- <br />sioners Bird and Scurlock voting in opposition. <br />B. Bid 89-65 - Traffic Signal Equipment <br />The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Mascola: <br />DATE: June 2, 1989 <br />TO: BOARD OF COUNTY CX&SUSSIONERS <br />THRU: James E. Chandler, County 'strator <br />H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director <br />Department of General s <br />FROM: Dcmi.nick L. Mascold, CPO Manager <br />I Division of Purchasing _ <br />SUBJ: IRC BID#89-65/TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT <br />r <br />1. BACKGROUND: <br />The Subject Bid for the Traffic Signal Equipnent was <br />properly advertised and Six (6) Invitations to bid were <br />sent out. On May 31, 1989, bids were received. Six (6) <br />vendors submitted proposals for the camrodity. <br />10 <br />