Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-14-19664.0 U Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council of the . City of Rochester, Minn., March 14, 1966 E Minutes of a special meeting of the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesote held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, in said City,,on March 14, 1966. President DeVries called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P. M., the following members being present: President DeVries, Aldermen Day, Eichten, Hanlon, McCaleb, Perry, Wilson. The call of the special meeting was read and President DeVries ordered the same placed on file, the said meeting having been called for the purpose of (1) consider the appointment.of an Administrative Assistant and (2) consider award of bids for.furnishing.one 2k ton truck cab and chassis for Street & Alley Department and any.other.business the said Common Council may deem proper. The following information was presented on Mr. James F. Andre whose application was considered as Administrative Assistant; Age 35, Single, Address St. Paul, Minnesota. Education - BA University of Minnesota 1958, Major Political Science and MA University of Minnesota 1962 in Public Administration; Positions Held - 7-63 to present was Finance Officer Roseville, Minnesota; 8-62 to.7-63 was Administrative Assistant to Village Manager of Roseville, Minnesota; 7-61 to 8-62 was Administrative intern at Richfield, Minnesota; during 1959 and 1961 legislative sessions was Administrative Assistant to secretary of senate; 1951 to 1955 in the U. A. Air Force. Alderman Eichten then moved the appointment of Mr. James.F. Andre as.Administrative Assistant effective April 1, 1966 with a proposed salary of $11,500.00 per year; Alderman Hanlon seconded the motion and all voted in favor thereof. The award of bids.for furnishing one 2' ton truck cab and chassis for the Street & Alley Department was considered. The following letter from Mark Gray, Maintenance Director, was read: "Honorable Mayor & Members of the Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota Gentlemen: I am writing m you to clarify my recommendation to Mr. C. A. Armstrong, City Engineer, concerning the rejection of the Universal Ford Truck Bid, and accepting the Bid of Truck Service Co. (GMC) The intent of our specifications for a 26000# GVW Truck Cab and Chassis was to get bids on equal equipment with no company having a competitive edge. Published specifications were used because it was assumed that their weights as advertised would make competitive bidding. This, however, was not the case. Universal Ford Co. representative crossed out the Ford Motor Co., Detroit, Michigan, specifications and wrote in specifications that would make the truck a FACTORY SPECIAL. Specifications asked for the "latest 1966, Current Production Modgl". Factory specials do not meet this specifications. Specifications asked for not less than 9000# front axle. Ford Motor Co. speci- fications lists only a 7000# front axle and does not show an opiton of 9000#. Specifications asked for 26000# GVW and 45000# GCW. Ford Motor Co. specifica- tions listed only a 25,500# GVW and 42,000#GCW in the C700 series. . The Asphalt Distributor Manufactueres insisted that the truck have a 9000# front axle. The Distributor Tank weighs 7600#, Asphalt weighs 11,340#, Truck Cab & Chassis about 9000# + making a tonal of 27,940#. By using the Factory published specifications, all dealers had to bid a 27,500# GVW Truck to meet specifications. All other bids received met specifica- tions as advertised by their respective manufacturers without any "writeins" except Ford. Truck Service Bid a 27,500# GVW, Model T*7680--low bid meeting specs. Selby International Co. bid a 27,500# GVW Model C01800. Clements Chevrolet Co. bid a 27,500 #GVW Model T80. Comparable equipment for a Iioid would be a C800 27,500E GVW but they bid a C700 - GVW 25,500#. 1 is 1 '1 • 1 11 Record of Official Proceedings of the Common Council 4 of the City of ..Rochester, Minn.; march 14, 1966 -CC •56865 If Universal Ford Co. is. allowed to change specifications at their will, then the other bidders should have the same privilege. If in your judgement.wyou feel there is some justification to reverse your decision concerning the awadd to Truck Service Co. then I would' recommend that all bids be rejected and that we readvertise, clarifying the specifications so that there is no misunderstanding among the bidders. /s Mark R. Gray" Mr. LeRoy Cook, salesman for Universal Ford Sales, Co. was present and stated that they felt there was no reason for rejecting their bids, as they felt they met specifications. Mr. Dwaine Hoops, Attorney representing Truck Service Company, stated that their company could also have changed the rating front'axle but felt they had submitted their bid in • acoordance with the specifications and did not think specifications should be able to be changed. Mr. R. W. Selby of Selby Truck Sales and Mr. Don Asfal were also each heard. After hearing those present a motion was made by Hanlon, second by Eichten, that the Council reconsider the action taken in awarding bids for this truck on March 7, 1966; upon roll call Day, Eichten, Hanlon, Perry and DeVries voting "aye", McCaleb abstaining and Wilson voting "no'.', the motion was carried. , A motion was then made by Hanlon, second by Perry, that all bids be rejected.and readvertised for bids with newly developed specifications, bids to be opendd on April 4, 1966; all voted in favor thereof except Alderman Day and McCaleb who abstained. A resolution ordering bids to be opened on April 4, 1966 at 2:00 P.-M: for furnishing one.27,500 lb. GVW Truck Chassis and Cab (distributor) for use in the Street & Alley Department was read. A motion was made by Wilson, second by Hanlon, that the resolution be adopted as read and all voting in favor thereof, fteept Aldermen Day and McCaleb who abstained, President DeVries declared the said resolution duly passed and adopted. Upon motion by Perry, second by Day, and all voting in favor thereof, the meeting was adjourned. CiO Clerk LA