My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/2/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
4/2/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:08 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:07:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/02/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the price off state contract, the other dealers do not have to <br />extend that to you. The original deal from Linder was out of <br />Fort Lauderdale; it was a different distributor. <br />Administrator Chandler further explained that Linder did not <br />meet specifications with the particular piece of machinery they <br />bid originally, and staff's recommendation at that time was for <br />Neff Machinery. <br />Chairman Bird still did not understand the figures set out <br />in the memo, and Commissioner Eggert felt that the memo should <br />somewhere have stated that the state contract price is such and <br />such an amount. <br />Chairman Bird asked just what did Linder bid the $69,621 for <br />that did not meet specifications, and Purchasing Manager Boynton <br />advised that it was the Dresser Model 830 and that is what is on <br />state contract. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that you do not get a trade-in <br />on state contract; so, we pay that amount and still have the old <br />equipment and sell it. He thought part of the confusion that <br />arises here is because the $69,621 figure is without a trade-in. <br />Administrator Chandler continued to stress that the Linder <br />piece of machinery did not meet specifications at that time even <br />though it was the same model. <br />At this point, it was suggested this matter be tabled until <br />later in the meeting, when the Board can have more information. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- <br />missioner Scurlock, the Board temporarily tabled <br />further discussion of Bid 91-45 for the Grader. <br />Discussion re End Loader: <br />Chairman Bird advised that he basically had the same ques- <br />tion about the bid on the End Loader. <br />Purchasing Manager Boynton explained that on this item, it <br />was staff recommendation to go with the .John Deere 624E from <br />Neff, but when we were reviewing this information with the state <br />contract DOT office, we were told a larger unit, the 644E, was <br />available on state contract at a savings of $16,000. Staff, <br />therefore, went back to the Department with this information and <br />were informed they much preferred to go with the heavier <br />equipment. So, we are buying a John Deere 644E; it is coming <br />from John Deere Industrial out of Baltimore, Maryland; and the <br />dealer. that would be doing the servicing pursuant to the pro- <br />visions of state contract is Neff Machinery. Adams DeWind's bid. <br />1 1 ROOK⢠F'Ai E <br />APR 2 1991 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.