SR-205-003 (240)
.
Santa Monica, Californ~ Januarv 29, 1981
G.S
d-
205-cCC>3
TO
Mayor and City Council
FRmt:
City Staff
't9 1 t) "'9'
SUBJECT: Recommendation to award bid for Two 4-\?hee1 Drive-
Articulated Loaders with l~ Yd. Bucket Bid No. 1553
Introduction
This report concerns award of bid for Articulated Loaders in
the total amount of $107,740.52 including applicable sales tax.
Funds for this purchase have been budgeted in account number
11-400-521-000-950.
Background
In response to published Notice Inviting Bids to furnish and
deliver Articulated Loaders in accordance with City specifications,
bids were received and publicly opened and read November 25, 198~.
Pronosal forms were mailed to eight vendors and notices were
advertised in accordance with City Charter and Municinal Code
prOVlSlons. Seven proposals were received.
However, four of the Bidders were automatically eliminated when they
declined to demonstrate their equipment at Staff's request.
The three bidders who performed on-site demonstrations of their
equipment were as follows.
Morgan Equipment Co. Clark Loaders
Case Power & Equipment Case Loaders -
Milo Equipment John Deere Loader
$79,027.24
$8l,8Q4.04
Sl07,741).52
As a result of these demonstrations. Staff is convinced that
from a performance as well as a safety stand point the John Deere
Loader is the best suited to satisfy the specific requirements of
the Beach Maintenance and Water Division
Recommendation
It is recommended that the award be made to Milo Equiument Co.
in the total amount of $107,740.52, including tax, as the lowest and
~
best bidder. / . \
>- !)
Prepared By: R. N. A~O~~~/
Purchas~Rg Agint / ~
'~ ~
ne 1 0 '\111'
DATE:
TO.
FROM-
SUBJECT
.
.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMO
.
January 28. 1981
Purchasing Agent ~
Donald To Arnett. Director. Recreation and Parks ~~
Stan Scholl, Dlrector. General Services '~
PURCHASE OF TRACTOR LOADER
In the 1980-1981 budget, Beach Maintenance and Water Divisions are
authorized to purchase tractor loaders. After bids were opened.
vendors were asked to supply a demonstration for performance evalua-
tion. Three bidders responded: Clark. Case, and John Deere. Of the
three tractors evaluated. both Water Division and Beach Maintenance
request purchase of the John Deere JD-444. The fallowing factors
were considered in our evaluation:
I. The Clark does not meet specifications in at least
five significant areas: It has a 3-cylinder engine
instead of specified 4; 159 Cll. inch displacement
instead of ~29; 3-speeds forward instead of 4-sP8edS
forward; 35 steering artlculation instead of 40 ;
and 2-wheel brake instead of 4-wheel brakeso
2, The Case tractor meets the specifications, However.
the Case is not acceptable for our usage because the
operator rides in the front articulating portion of
the tractor while the rear portion moves to steer the
tractor. All three Senior Equipment Operators that
tested the Case tractor felt it was more difficult to
operate in this positiono Particularly while traveling
in reverse. visibility was limited and the operators
became disorientedo The Hater Department \~orks in narrow
alleys where the operator must know where the rear of the
tractor is gOing at all times. It is doubly critical on
the beach because of the number of people in the work area.
For use on the beach and in alleys, this type of tractor
presents significant potential liability.
To justify the $12.000 difference in preice between the Case and the
John Deere. the fOllowing points were considered:
1. John Deere is the heaviest tractor bid -- over 4.000 blso
heavier than the Case. Weight is essential for traction
in the sand, and it is an indication of the size of the
structural members,
.
.
-2-
2< The hydraulic system on the John Deere is almost twice
the capacity of the Case< Hydraulics are used for
steering and for the bucket operation. John Deere has
separate pumps for each function whereas Case has only
one pump for both steering and lifting, The hydraulic
lines on the John Deere are better protected from damage
than the Case.
3. John Deere is the only machine with totally enclosed
brakes to protect them from sand, mud. and salt air.
On other models the brake disc is exposed to the elements,
4. Breakout force, which is very important to Water Division.
is 17,900 lbs, on the John Deere -- over 4.000 lbs,
greater than the Case, This statistic is an indication
of the greater engine and hydraulic power on the John
Deere.
5. According to date provided to us by the manufacturers.
the noise level decibel readings are:
Clark
Case
John Deere
85 db @ 21 feet
84 db @ 50 feet
75 db @ 50 feet
6, John Deere has one-lever control for raising and lowering
the bucket as well as dumping the bucket, The other
tractors have a lever for each function. Operators liked
the one-lever concept and felt it waS more efficient.
7. The City of Newport Beach has two John Deere tractors ~
one they have had for six years and one was purchased
last year. They report their machines have given ex~
cellent service. The State of California Beaches has
several John Deere tractors, including one at Bolsa Chica
State Beach, Our own Beach Operators have had two John
Deere tractors for 4 years of excellent service. The Water
Division has a John Deere backhoe presently being used to
excavate for water mnins. It has given excellent service
for 1~ years.
We feel John Deere is the most tractor for the money over the long
term. We have given each of the three vendors equal time for evalua-
tion. In view of potential opposition from Case and Clark vendors,
the following points will be difficult for them to dispute:
1. Clark does not meet specs in five major areas.
2. The Case tractor places the operator in the front articu~
latoring position, a feature that we feel is not satisfactory
for our use.
3. The John Deere is worth the extra money for the reasons
stated. In a comparison of specified features among all
tractors bid. John Deere places first in most categories.
*
I
I
I ~~i
I El E5j
I trl ,
b trl I
~.o
Cle:
t=JH
;oj'"Cl
'--'~
trJ
Z
~I
I
I
,
i n~i
I ~ CIl
~:
l' 01
~~,
Cl:;r;:l
tTj
;All<'
'--'
t<:I
.0
G
H
'l:!
?'
~I
~
r-<
o
~
CIl
~
~
Z
Cl
tP
t<:I
CIl
~
t;d
H
~
t<:I
:;r;:l
i I I
I J
i
~ I 0
~ ~ I ~ ~
, 1
, -vi- '
~ -w-I 00 I -(/)-'1'
co v.,~1 H i-i"~l
-:--1 _J_.'
~ :::t:l 1 t;~i
~ 1:~li ~ ~~l
+1 i-i"O p-o,
I I . ;
! I I
, I
. I
I ! I
i I
I
I
I
I
....... trJ ,
~~ I'
Z;;tl
r;):=
tTj;l>
:;r;:l;;tl
~
l'
01:'1
;1>.0
oe:
trJH
:;r;:l'l:!
'--'~
trJ
~
I
'(j
;;.~
~~
~ -(/)-i
~~~I
~~:O1
, 1--'0'
I +"-01
i I
, I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.......H
HZ
Z>-'3
""1:':1
1:'1;;d
I>dZ
Z~
~...,
~H
IHO
JOZ
IS;~
Il':=
'S~
~;$
MCIl
;;d...,
~~
;d
I
I
i
I
~~
ll'P>
?-":><
i
~ ~
~U1"""
~ r .
HNCO
~~~
Ut-'O
~~O
,
I
i
i !
I
I
.......Cf.ll
C"l :;I:: :
~ trJ;
..., '"Cl ;
trJ :;I:: :
;:0 trJ ;
'"Cl:;r;:l
H C1:
b ,
~
;:0 i
~ ,;
~
\ -......,I' i
J
o
~ fJ
t-' :><
-{f},,'! -m- I,'
t-! t-' I
t-' t-' I
....... 1.0\ ~ [
'-Q lO\ N
~l~~'
~ [~"O
N NO
.......~
L,H
Ol'
;:r:0
Z
trJ
0,0
t=:iG
trlH
;::0'1:1
~~
trJ
l'Z
0...,
~
o
trl
;;d
'--'
;
i I
~s
(f -{f}-
I--'
o
0\1--'
00\
\D-i"
, CllN
U'~O
NO
I
,~ I
I
I
I
;
I.......~I
f3 ~ I
~0i
:;d ~ '
;'::2
l'trJ
0..0
~e:
OH I
t"l >-t:I:
:;cl 3: i
'-" ~ !
Z;
>-3!
>-3
o
~ ~
III Il>
I--' :><:
~I ~~:
-dj ~-: ~
.~' ~~: .~
. I NO'
I -i"Oi
II-i
I~
:-Q
; ~ I
;
I ~ ,
~
~
c::
Z
H
~
c::
Z
H
"
[1j
:><:
'-'l
c::
Z
t-I
,..,
rrI
X
...,
c::
z
....,
...,
;
I
I
i ~
I ...,
Ii
l~
"
;'
I]
1\
I
,
Onl
t>::Io
~~
:;r;:l~
~z
~><:
~
~R'>
t-1
~
t:i
t'1
tP
~
'='
z
o
t-'~
\..nn
U1>
w"tl
o
'"%j
n
::-'::d
OH
Cf.lt::l
HCf.l
Z
Q
~
~
o
-i"
I
~
::x::
trJ
t>:l
L'
o
;;d
H
<:
trJ
I
;I>
:;r;:l
~
H
n
e:
l'
;I>
II ~
Il'
o
~
t::;J
trJ
:;cl
CIl
I--'
I--'
I
N
U1
I
co
::::>
w
o
o
'"Cl
~
::E:
H
...,
,. ;:r:
I~
i ;;
I g Q
~ I:
I~
.
~-.s _
FE8 1 0 1981
MORGAN
EGlUIPMENT
~-- ~... ............ ~
~~~ ~ -. r ~~.'
~.~~" - ..-
~I.fii P... "'-, -=to 'I ~ J
1~~' ~.'. ~
- --. #....\
February 9, 1981
City of Santa Honica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
To Richard Aranoff, Director of Administration
Subject: Reply to recommendation to purchase tractor loader,
dated Jan. 28, 1981, Bid No. 1553, City of Santa
Honica.
In view of the commendable effort by the Recreation and Parks
Dent., Hater Division and Beach )'1aintenance to fairly evaluate
the submitted snecifications, Morgan Equipment Co., representin~
Clark Tractor Loaders, feels a resnonsibility to the City of
Santa l10nica to define the invalid" conclusions dratm from the
comnarisons. Unfortunately, time couldn't be alloted to ~organ
Equipment to explain Clark's features and to exnlain also. spec.
information nroving that overall the Clark is within the bid
specs., with a considerable cost savin~ factor, both initally and
over a period of years because of low ~aintenance and hi~h
production.
ENGINE
Bid snecs stated 329
h.n. and 4 cylinder.
requirements of 80 h
cycle the larger cu.
cubic inch in disnlacement with 80 fl~vheel
The Clark quoted~meets and exceeds your
p. being a 2 cycle en~ine rather than 4
inch disnlacement is not reQuired.
4 CYLINDER VS. 3, The city of L A. recently made a study of the
2 cycle 3 cylinder G.~1. engine Their documented conclusion stated
that the c: H was at least equal or better than the 4 cylinder
engine, proven by years of job tested reliability and a-worldwide
network of authorized dealers for narts and service. In some cases,
parts and service are available at any local narts house. (Note:
J D. is the only source for engLne parts for their engine).
3 SPEEDS INSTEAD OF 4, J. D has a 4 speed forward-2 reverse Part
of these specs appeared to be wri tten to ",.rri te-out" Clark. Also
note that the J U' automatically shifts from 1st to 2nd and 3rd to
4th taking the control of the machine away from the onerator.
lmarine going down a hill with a full load and the ~__~
FEB 1 0 19a1
MORGAN EQUIPMENT CO
PO BOX 368 144BO ALONORA BLVD LA MIRAOA CA 90638,213/868-4754 OR 714/521-6410 TELEX 68-5508
.
.
.
E~UI~ENT
Page 2
machine shifts gears and picks up speed.
35 DEGREE STEERING VS. 40 DEGRE~: Documented turning radius of
J D is 32'. Clark is 36' Again, Clark chose through
experience to reduce the tipping factor and maintain overall
safer machine. Published static tip load for each machine are
as follows:
35C Straight - 10.490 Lbs.
Full Turn 9,600 Lbs.
890 Lbs. (8.48%)
John Deer -
Straight - 12,835 Lbs.
Full Turn - 11,145 Lbs.
1690 Lbs. (13.16%)
Note: John Deer increases its tipping rate in a turn by 4.6% more
than the Clark 35C, this is due to the 40 degree articulation
rather than the industry standard of 35 degree. The Clark steering
design and hinge assembly is unsurpassed in design, access and
serviceability.
2 k~EEL BRAKE VS 4. The Clark loader submitted to bid included
standard 4-wheel hydraulic disc type. (See point #3 below).
$25,000 Price Justification' (Note point for point per recommendation
for 2 machines).
1. J.D. stated heavier, but with the inclusion of the same equipment,
Clark is lighter by only 1130 lbs. The conclusion by weight to
traction was partly unfounded. Weight does make a difference but
the real factor for traction is the type of differential and
planetaries and torque converter (See #4 below).
2. Clark has a 42 gallon hydraulic capacity, using standard fluid.
Clark has a built-in magnet in the hyd. tank to prolong fluid and
machine lift. Clark has separate pumps for all hydraulic functions.
Through double-acting cylinders, the system is specifically de-
signed to provide a proper balance of hydraulic power and speed for
the boom and bucket system, so that hydraulic power and speed is
matched to machine speed for smooth, powerful loading cycles and
quick responsive steering, without sacrificing tractive ability.
.
.
.
ECJlJIPNlENT
Page 3
3. Totally enclosed brakes' This conclusion again falls short
of the overall picture. The two Clark machines in the Trash DeFt.
have had no brake problems and they are exposed to harsh, acid-
type materials Compare also, Transit ~ix Concrete Co of Los
Angeles. Their Clark 35-C's must dig out concrete sumps, doing so
with concrete debris and water over the brake assembly, Transit
would have no other system. Remember, that to service the J.D,
brakes, the J.D. service department must completely tear down the
axle and the housing. As J D brakes wear, they contaminate the
fluid supply, further increasing problem probability of the
differential and bearings enclosed and using the same oil
4. Breakout Force: Again, not the total picture. The machine
can only pick up so much weight before the wheels come off the
ground, thus losing traction. Clark's totally designed breakout
force is part of the total cycle within safe practices and machine
performance. Again, providing less operator fatigue and better
production with increased safety.
5. Noise Level: The measurement given was at 21' the J.D, is at
50' .
6. One lever control cannot give the accuracy by the preferred
3-control system. This also can save the operator from making costly
mistakes, reducing the fatigue factor, and again, increasing safety.
7 The City of Santa Monica has two 35-C Clark loaders. Through
all available information, both documented and verbal, Clark's
performance is unsurpassed By continuing with Clark products,
standardization of parts will continue to save revenue for many
years to come.
Thank you for allowing us to provide you with the facts and the
overall picture. Clark and Morgan Equipment Company have pulled
together for the City of Santa Monica to best serve the interest
of the people, by bidding the machine specified, and by cutting
price schedule far below target competitors.
Sincerely,
MORGAN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
. A~~ ~dC.u'-J-~~c
R. "tv. Isaacson
Sales 1'1anager
RiH;bi
- .
.
.
RE~E~V~E~, ~
on~~' ",_:~~t I ~
c '--.0--
fEB \Q \\1 4? A~ '? l
C3se Pow~r
and Equipment
J I Case
: -e"'-~':::::- '=::::;'"Y.')~fly
-~ 0 CC.l -;2:::-:
SAW ,.~,~, ,J\. u~L1F
~ ~3~'. r~c.-, ~~ C!"= ~Gd~
:.... -y- ':]' irj.J~'~'y C';;--(8''''':;: ~ .' ~9
::=r::-e- c. . ~'::g :::6' 1
Fe;,ruar:/ 17, 1981
Ho~arable Mayor John J. Bambrick
CITY OF SANTA MONIC~
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, Calif., 90401
REFERENCE' WHEEL LOADER BID #1553 AWARDED TO ~IlO EQUIPMENT COMPANY
Gentlemen:
In view of the following facts:
1. The Clty of Santa Monica Adminlstratlve Staff's and the City Council '5
apparent dlsregard for the basic princlples of fairness and ethics
inherent in the c0mpetitive bidding Diocess.
2. The Adminlstrative Staff's award rec8~~endation WhlCh was based on
numerous untrue statewents, with ~o 8pportunity to repudiate same.
3. The discourteous treatment afforded cur representative at your City
Council ~eeting on February 10, 1931.
We hereby request that Case Power and Equip~ent be permanently removed from
your co~struction equipment bidder's list.
Slncerely,
~,~1~
ia;;~;-~~n'j ,
GEriER.'\L MANAGER
Case Power and Equipment
DRT/mm
cc: Charles T. ~cClain - City Manager
Cheryl D. Rhoden - Counci 1
Perl-Y Scott - Counei 1
C~ristine E. Reed - Councll
Wllliam H. Jennings - Council
Ruth Vannatta Goldway - Council
~nn M. Srore - City Clerk
Stephen S. Stark - City Attorney
Douglas Stafford - Park Dept.
Paul Golladay - Water Dept.
Robert Miller - Mech. Maint.
R. Aronoff - P. A.
R. Ramlow - Buyer
Dondld T. Arnett - Director,
Rec. & Parks
Stan Scholl - Director, General
Services
-;r. ~ ... .... "
; "-:~ ~-~~ ~~
::1 ~ '-,iIl.4