SR-205-003 (606)
.tC
Purch: F :\FI NANCE\PURCH\STFRPTS\SRBD2853. DOC
Council Meeting: April 13, 2004
APR 1 3 2004
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Award Bid to Furnish and Deliver Environmentally Preferable Cleaning
Products, Bid #2853
Introduction
This report recommends award of bid to furnish and deliver environmentally preferable
cleaning products at specified unit prices, plus applicable sales tax, with two one-year
renewal options. The estimated annual expenditure is $125,000.
Backqround
In 1993, the City Of Santa Monica became one of the first local governments to develop
custodial cleaning product procurement policies that included environmental and human
health criteria. As part of a Toxic-Use-Reduction Program, the City purchases
environmentally preferable cleaning products that are biodegradable, low in volatile organic
compounds, and free of carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, and other toxic chemicals.
When possible, the City has established minimum standards for environmental preferability
and performance based on the Green Seal Standard for Industrial and Institutional
Cleaners (GS-37). Green Seal is an independent, non-profit, environmental certification
organization.
j.C
- 1 -
APR 1 3 2004
....._,~.__,J,l,.,<.iiik~
Discussion
In February 2003, the City published Notices Inviting Bids to furnish and deliver
environmentally preferable cleaning products in accordance with City specifications. Bids
were received and publicly opened and read on April 11, 2003. Proposal forms were
mailed to ninety-nine vendors and notices were advertised in accordance with City Charter
and Municipal Code provisions. Eight bid proposals were received; however, only four
proposals met the bid award criteria established in the City's specifications. Refer to
Attachment A for vendor pricing and product information.
Of the eight vendors submitting bid proposals, four passed the minimum human health and
environmental standards, and other "non-product formulation" criteria contained in the
City's bid specifications. These four vendors then advanced to a testing and evaluation
phase, and each was given three locations at which to test their products for a period of
approximately one month. During this period custodial staff at each location tested product
performance, as well as product dispensing equipment, training, prompt and reliable
service, and knowledgeable local support. The Ashkin Group, a "green cleaning"
consultant, oversaw this testing and evaluation phase, and entered feedback from
custodial staff into a "Custodial Product and Vendor Assessment" (Attachment B) which
generates numerical scores on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) for each vendor.
Meanwhile the Environmental Programs Division and Purchasing staff evaluated product
pricing on a scale of 1 (highest price) to 4 (lowest price), based on the cost of a ready-to-
use quart of product.
- 2 -
Based on the "Vendor Assessment Report" produced by The Ashkin Group and the pricing
comparison report, it was determined that Royal Paper could provide the City with the
safest, most effective cleaning products at the lowest price.
Budqet/Financiallmpact
Fiscal Year 2003-04 appropriation authority for this purchase is in the maintenance
accounts of various departments. As the materials are drawn out of inventory, they will be
expensed against available FY 2003-04 appropriation authority. Estimated annual usage is
approximately $125,000.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the award of Bid #2853 be made to Royal Paper at specified unit
prices, plus applicable sales tax, with two one-year renewal options, as the best bidder.
Prepared By:
Diane Howell, Purchasing Agent
Richard Chiu, Buyer
Karl Bruskotter, Environmental Programs Analyst
Brian Johnson, Environmental Programs Manager
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Pricing Spreadsheet
Custodial Product and Vendor Assessment
- 3 -
:0 ~ :J: ." 0 DJ (i) (i) ~~J.;~f~~ 5= :J: ." 0 DJ (i) (i) :~~~~~~~
~ II) c CD !l- i>> CD ." II) c CD !l- i>> CD ."
~ .. ~ ill ::;: ~ 3 ~
QI i!S" g, ~ II) ::r fit CD a g, II) ::r fit CD a D
- ::;: ~ a fit !l 'e ::;: ~ a fit !.
-a ::s' en c CD 0 g, ~ en c CD 0 g,
CQ 0 ti ::!. 0 c r')' 0 ti ::!. 0 c
"0 iii' II) c a CD ." r') .:-..: CD II) c a CD " r')
"C ." CD II) C .... -5 " ." CD II) C ....
CD 0 iii'
., t)o 2- lQ ~ -a 0 it':: 2- lQ 0 ~ .. 0
BI ti CD CD II) ti CD CD "C a ,.m
::r iii' .. 0 .... t)o iii' .. 0 Ii
BI II) II) fit CD -I BI II) II) fit CD
CD ::r fit ~ lQ ::r fit ~ lQ
Q, CD CD
l>> CD CD 0 ,::2:, CD CD CD 0 ::::s
g .. .. 0 -< JiiI!t Q, .. .. 0 -<
III CD 0 CD I
~ :.:......:.
l>> II) - ,::2:, ::: II) -
"'. ~ < I ~ <
~ III CD CD 0 CD CD
~ .. ~ ::: .. ~
en g, CD g,
~ CD c: 0 ~ 0 I
~ I
'e ~ s::: .. ..... .. ~
0 ii1
5' .... l>>
..~ S' ~ .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. ,
..... .
:t 'e 9' ,
m 0 :::a & ::a
::: :;- 0 0
5' lit 1 CD '<
i !!.
CQ N Co) . Co) ..... . .
-, ~ N ." ."
.... II) ~ II)
::r = "C "
BI :t CD ~ CD
.. ..
:; m "
CD i a .... .... ? ? 0 0
t)o @- (.) Co ,.... .... (:) (:)
!l :; co (II . ..... (II (J'I
CD ~ )>
0 0' m .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. m
~ I a a -f
~, "
Ql ti ;' -f
:::::
'e 'e 0 0 - )>
::! m
::! r')' CD CD
r')' CD .... II) II) -. "
5' .... N .... .... Co) .... Co) ~ ~ C.
l>>
~ ::: 5' 5' =It :I:
Q, lQ cg
= en en I\) S
.... c c CO
= " " m
:t ~ ...... 0 0 0 0 en
" (:) "
~ -< .... i:,.) .. w CD -< W Z
co . 0 0 0 ..... -
- -f
.,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,.
:; )>
CD -
::r
cQ' -
::r s::: s:::
!l )> )>
.... .... Co) N .... Co) N s::: s:::
'e N 0 0
::! 0 i 0
r')'
!D
,
N N 0 .... 0 0
.. u. w m u. (:)
N N Co) 0 0 co
,
.,. .,. .,. .,. .,. .,.
c
,
c: c:
-. ~ ~
iii. iii'
.... . N . N N .... 0' 0
en c c
c:J c:J
CD CD
0 N ? 0 0 0
Co Co .... CD :.... ..
(II CD .... (II 0 m
ATTACHMENT B
(Bid# 2853)
Custodial Product and Vendor Assessment
Royal Paper Unisource Empire Paper MAMCO
General Purpose Cleaner 4.5 4 2.5 3.25
Bathroom Cleaner 4.5 4.66 3.5 3.5 .
Glass Cleaner 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5
Furniture Polish* N/A 3 N/A N/A
liQuid Hand Soap* N/A N/A 4 N/A
Cleaner / Deoreaser 5 4.5 3.5 5
Product Average 4.63 3.94 3.60 3.82
Dispensino EQuipment 5 3.5 4.16 2
Trainino 5 5 4.66 2.25
Prompt Service (time) 5 5 4 2
Reliable Service (accuracv) 5 ** 3.5 2.5
KnowledQeable Local Support 5 5 4.16 2.5
Vendor Averaae 5 4.63 4.10 2.25
Product + Vendor Average: 9.63 8.57 7.70 6.07
Numerical scores are given to each product and vendor performance on a scale of 1
(poor) to 5 (excellent).
Royal Paper has a score of 9.63, meaning it has the best overall performance.
* Products did not fit the needs of the City during the testing period. Because of the
short testing period, the primary focus of the testing was on daily cleaning products.
These items, therefore, were only tested at certain locations.
** No feedback was given by City custodial staff for this service category (Unisource).