Laserfiche WebLink
APR 2 1991 <br />nnYY � <br />was rejected because they did not meet specifications. Ms. <br />Boynton apologized that these figures were not available sooner. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Eggert, to reject all bids on <br />Bid 91-45 for the End Loader and authorize the <br />purchase of said End Loader off State Contract at <br />a savings of approximately $16,000 as recommended <br />by staff. <br />Chairman Bird wished to have it confirmed for the record <br />that the Adams DeWind bid did not meet specifications, and this <br />was confirmed. <br />Chairman Bird then asked for a further clarification of <br />where the savings of $16,000 comes from. <br />Administrator Chandler explained that Neff was the recom- <br />mended bidder at $88,045 before we found out about the provisions <br />of state contract, and they were the recommended bidder inasmuch <br />as Adams DeWind didn't meet the specifications primarily on the <br />braking ability of the equipment they had bid. All the other <br />bidders did meet specs. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that, therefore, the state <br />contract price is $72,045, and that was confirmed. <br />Chairman Bird felt it would be a lot clearer if it were set <br />out in the recommendation that there is no trade-in and the net <br />price under state contract is $72,045 for this equipment. <br />Board members agreed they would like to see the memo set out <br />the actual purchase price off state contract, as well as the <br />dealer we are buying it from and where the service comes from. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on approval <br />of the purchase of the End Loader on state contract. <br />It was voted on and carried unanimously. <br />Return to Discussion on Grader <br />ON MOTION By Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- <br />missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously agreed to <br />take the matter of purchase of the Grader off the table. <br />Administrator Chandler informed the Board that, in regard to <br />the Grader, the original recommendation had been to award to Neff <br />inasmuch as Linder did not meet the specifications mainly because <br />of the transmission and the gears. <br />12 <br />