HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Accept National Joint Powers Alliance Joint Purchasing Contract for (1) John Deere Backhoe
BoardDocs® ProPage 1 of 3
Agenda Item Details
MeetingMar 06, 2018 - REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE BOARD - 7:00 p.m.
Category8. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
Subject8.1 Motion to accept National Joint Powers Alliance Joint Purchasing Contract for the
purchase of one (1) new John Deere 410L backhoe/loader in an amount not to exceed
$138,640.15.
AccessPublic
TypeAction
Preferred DateMar 06, 2018
Absolute DateMar 06, 2018
Fiscal ImpactYes
Dollar Amount136,640.00
BudgetedYes
Budget SourceVehicle Replacement Fund
Recommended ActionAccept the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) joint purchasing Contract Award #032515-
JDC and authorize the purchase of one (1) new 2018 John Deere Backhoe/Loader 410L,
from West Side Tractor Sales Co., of Wauconda, Illinois at a cost not to exceed
$138,640.15.
Public Content
Background
In the current budget, funds are available to replace unit 2739. This vehicle is a 2002 John Deere 410G
Backhoe/Loader used by the Public Works Department to excavate water mains, sewer lines, minor street repairs, and
grounds work. It is also used to load sand, black dirt, stone, gravel, and salt. During the winter months, it is used to
help with snow removal operations.
This vehicle has been evaluated utilizing our detailed comprehensive replacement protocol. This process evaluates
each replacement candidate on four (4) major factors: Age, mileage, repair & maintenance (R&M) cost, and condition
of the body/mechanical components. A point total equaling or exceeding eleven (11) out of sixteen (16) indicates the
vehicle should be replaced.
2729 scored a total of twelve (12) points; a high rating indicating replacement is warranted. The vehicle condition
evaluation form and summary report have been attached as Exhibits A and B respectively.
Additionally, a life cycle cost analysis summarizing total ownership costs is attached as Exhibit C.
Furthermore, Mercury Associates, Inc. of Rockville, Maryland (Mercury), a fleet management consultant with expertise
in municipal and public utility operations, performed a study to determine the optimal replacement cycle for several of
our fleet asset classes. Backhoe/loader combination vehicles were included in this analysis. The result of the Mercury
examination indicated the optimal replacement cycle for our backhoe/loaders is at year eleven (11). Mercury further
recommended replacing these pieces of equipment after only ten (10) years to avoid downtime and maintenance
costs associated with vehicle complexity and realize greater savings for increased fuel efficiency. A copy of Mercury’s
findings on this matter is enclosed as Attachment D.
https://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login6/21/2018
BoardDocs® ProPage 2 of 3
th
Presently, 2739 has entered its 16 year of service. If the service life is extended, repairs totaling $18,000 should be
performed:
?Rebuild hydraulic system pump, hoses and cylinders. The work is estimated to cost $12,000.
?Repair several transmission leaks. Repair work is estimated to cost $3,000.
?Other repairs totaling $3,000.
Staff recommends replacing the existing 2739 (John Deere Model 410G) with John Deere Model 410L. This unit which
has a fuel efficient and USEPA Tier 4 emissions standard compliant diesel engine. It has 1,500 lbs. more lifting
capacity and 220 lbs. more backhoe bucket force compared to our existing unit when new. Additionally, this
backhoe/loader has four-wheel drive to perform better off road and in the snow. Photographs depicting the existing
John Deere 410G and the recommended replacement John Deere 410L are enclosed as Attachments E and F.
Joint Purchasing Contract
There are no local or state-wide joint purchasing program for this vehicle. However, the Village of Mount Prospect is
part of a national joint purchasing cooperative, the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA), through which the
recommended replacement unit can be purchased. Procurement of vehicles and equipment through the NJPA satisfies
Village purchasing and public bidding requirements. The authorized local NJPA vendor is West Side Tractor. A copy of
West Side Tractor’s price quotation is enclosed as Attachment G.
Alternatives
1. Accept National Joint Power Alliance joint purchasing contract for the purchase of one (1) new John Deere 410 L
backkhoe/loader.
2. Action at discretion of Village Board.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Village Board accept the NJPA bid Contract Award #032515-JDC and authorize the
purchase of one (1) new 2018 John Deere Backhoe/Loader 410L, from West Side Tractor Sales Co., of Wauconda,
Illinois at a cost not to exceed $138,640.15. This award includes a trade-in credit of $20,000 for our existing 410G.
Attachment A and B _ 2739 Eval Forms, A-B, 2-12-18.pdf (15 KB)
Attachment C _ 2739 Life Cycle Cost Worksheet-C.pdf (13 KB)
Attachment D _ Mercury Associates, Inc. FINAL Report on Mt. Prospect Optimal Replacement Cycles.pdf (260
KB)
Attachment F _ New 410L-2739.png (93 KB)Attachment G _ NJPA 410L , 02-07-18.pdf (203 KB)
Attachment E _ Old 2739.jpg (153 KB)
Administrative Content
Executive Content
Motion & Voting
Accept the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) joint purchasing Contract Award #032515-JDC and authorize the
purchase of one (1) new 2018 John Deere Backhoe/Loader 410L, from West Side Tractor Sales Co., of Wauconda,
Illinois at a cost not to exceed $138,640.15.
https://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login6/21/2018
BoardDocs® ProPage 3 of 3
Motion by Paul Hoefert, second by Michael Zadel.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yea: William Grossi, Eleni Hatzis, Paul Hoefert, Richard Rogers, Colleen Saccotelli, Michael Zadel
https://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login6/21/2018
EXHIBIT A
Village of Mount Prospect
Vehicle/Equipment Condition Evaluation Form
Unit # 2739 Assigned Dept. /Div. Public Works/Water
Year: 2002 Make: John Deere Model: 410G Mileage: N/A
Hours: 3,536 Date of Evaluation: 2/12/18 Performed By: Jim Breitzman
System Diagnosis Estimated Repair Cost
Engine Fair-20% Power Loss Rebuild in near future
Transmission Fair-Oil Leaks $3,000.00
Differential Good
Exhaust System Good
Cooling System Fair-Radiator Corrosion $2,500.00
Brakes Good
Tires Good
Steering Good
Suspension Good
HVAC Fair-Does not have A/C
Electrical Good
Body/Frame Good
Interior Fair-Window latches worn $500.00
Other- Hydraulics Fair-Replace hoses, extend cyl $12,000.00
rebuild, Hyd pump rebuild
Total Estimated Repair Cost $18,000.00
Diagnosis Code Code Description
Good Systems are functioning well and no major repairs are expected.
Fair Some major repairs are needed, but unit can remain in service a little longer
in current condition.
Poor Major repairs are required as soon as possible to ensure unit safety and
reliability.
EXHIBIT B
Village of Mount Prospect
Vehicle/Equipment Evaluation Summary Report
Unit # 2739 Assigned Dept. /Div. Public Works/Water
Year: 2002 Make: John Deere Model: 410G Mileage: N/A
Date of Evaluation: 2/12/18 Performed By: Jim Breitzman
Ratings:
Unit age: 16 Base Policy Age: 15 Points: 3
Mileage/Hrs: 3,536 Base Policy Mileage/Hrs: 5,000 Points: 1
Maintenance Cost:
Repair and Maintenance Cost: $ 28,168 ÷ Purchase Price: $ 69,900
Repair and Maintenance Percentage of Purchase Price: 40 % Points: 4
Condition Evaluation:(attach Vehicle Condition Evaluation Form)
Estimated Repair Cost: $ 18,000 ÷ Current Book Value: $ 20,000
Repair Cost Percentage of Current Book Value: 90 % Points: 4
Total Ownership Cost Per Mile:
(Lifetime Fuel + R&M+ Purchase Price) $ 109,508 Total Points: 12
Less Salvage Value $ 20,000
Net Lifetime Costs $ 89,508
Divided by Mileage/Hours 3,536
Operating Cost Per Mile/Hour $ 25.31
Comments and other considerations:
This equipment has operated 3,536 hours during its lifetime, which equals 106,080 engine miles.
Superintendent’s recommendation:
This equipment has met its life expectancy and major repairs will be needed if service life is
extended any longer based on condition.
Total Point Evaluation: A point total equaling or exceeding eleven (11) indicates that the vehicle should be
recommended for replacement. The point total is used to rank its replacement priority. The larger the number the
higher the replacement priority will be.
$25.31
3,536
/ Hours =
$20,000.00
Salvage Value
EXHIBIT C
Village of Mount Prospect
Vehicle/Equipment Number - 2739 (2002 John Deere, 410G Backhoe)
$109,508.00
February 2018 Vehicle/Equipment Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Total Ownership Cost -Cost Per Hour to Operate
Cost
Report on
Optimal Vehicle
Replacement
Cycle Analyses
for
Mount T ros-pc t
November 2017
MERCURY ASSOCIATES, INC.
-MIA -Wo y
November 14, 2017
Mr. Jim Breitzman
Vehicle Maintenance Superintendent
Village of Mount Prospect
1700 W. Central Road
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Dear Mr. Breitzman:
Mercury Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this report on optimal replacement cycles
for backhoes in the Village of Mount Prospect fleet.
We appreciate having been given the opportunity to work with the Village and hope that
you will not hesitate to call on our firm if we can be of assistance in the future.
Very truly yours,
Paul T. Lauria
President
Mercury Associates, Inc. • www.mercury-assoc.com
7361 Calhoun Place, Suite 680 • Rockville, MD 20855 • 301 519 0535
�[ Report on
Optimal Vehicle Replacement Cycle Analyses
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1
METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................... 2
ANALYSISRESULTS.................................................................................................................. 3
SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... 3
ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................... 4
ANALYSIS DETAILS................................................................................................................ 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................. 9
Report on
Optimal Vehicle Replacement Cycle Analyses
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of an optimal vehicle replacement cycle analysis
performed on backhoe loaders in the Village of Mount Prospect's fleet. The objective of
this analysis was to determine how often these assets should be replaced in order to
minimize the cost of their ownership and operation.
A widely held principle of fleet management is that vehicle replacement practices have a
significant impact on fleet costs and performance. These impacts result from the fact that
the total cost of ownership (TCO) of any type of vehicle or piece of equipment does not
remain constant over time. Rather, it is high when a vehicle is new, diminishes steadily
for some period of time until it reaches a minimum, and then increases steadily thereafter.
Graphically speaking, the total cost of ownership of a vehicle takes the shape of a "U".
This is illustrated in the graph below, taken from an optimal vehicle replacement cycle
analysis that Mercury Associates performed recently for a mid-sized US city.
Capital, Operating and Total Cost Trendlines
(Single -Axle Dump Truck)
25
20
0 15
0
00 10 -A "*"��
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Replacement Cycle (years)
The implication of this principle is that
organizations that keep vehicles and
equipment in their fleet beyond the
point at which their TCO is at or near
a minimum — that is, near the bottom
of the U-shaped curve — incur higher
than necessary costs. Accordingly,
increasing the frequency of vehicle
replacements and reducing average
vehicle age lowers vehicle and fleet
costs — assuming that vehicles are
not already being replaced at or near
the point at which their TCO is at a
minimum.
Historically, many organizations developed replacement guidelines loosely based on
these principles; that is, in an informal manner based on such things as past practices,
input from fleet maintenance and repair personnel and vehicle operators, a comparison
of replacement practices with peer organizations, and the amount of funds typically
available for vehicle replacement purchases from year to year. However, the lack of a
rigorous approach to developing these guidelines makes it easy for organizations to
ignore them when it is expedient to do so — for example, when the amount of cash
required to repair and retain an old vehicle is substantially less than the amount required
to replace it.
The highest performing fleet management organizations develop replacement cycle
guidelines empirically using lifecycle cost analysis (LCA) techniques. These involve
modeling the stream of costs associated with acquiring, operating, and disposing of a
1
Report on
Optimal Vehicle Replacement Cycle Analyses
particular type of vehicle over a range of possible replacement cycles, and identifying the
cycle that will result in the lowest total cost of ownership. While it usually is impractical to
perform such analyses for every type of vehicle in a fleet, it is not uncommon to do so for
selected types of assets. Such analytical results improve the precision of forecasts of
future fleet replacement costs.
While the analysis of objective data is essential for identifying optimal replacement cycles,
it is important to note that there also are indirect asset costs that are impacted by an
organization's vehicle replacement policies and decisions. These costs may not be easy
to quantify, but nonetheless should be taken into account when reviewing and interpreting
empirical analysis results. Specifically, they may, and often do, lead us to recommend
that a particular organization utilize a replacement cycle that, strictly speaking, does not
yield the absolutely lowest EAC. These factors include:
• The predictability and, hence, manageability of asset repair costs, both of which
tend to diminish as assets age;
• Maintenance and repair -related asset downtime and its impact on fleet size;
• Service disruptions resulting from unexpected asset breakdowns;
• Impacts on employee efficiency, productivity, effectiveness, and safety associated
with asset availability and reliability levels;
• Reduced driver/operator confidence
appearance, and performance, and
decisions and operating behavior; and
n and satisfaction with asset condition,
corresponding changes in asset usage
• Technological obsolescence, which impacts everything from repair parts
availability to fuel consumption rates.
METHODOLOGY
In this project, we identified the optimal replacement cycle for backhoe loaders in the
Village's fleet. The village currently operates three such units.
Our analysis involved using both historical cost data furnished by the Village on these
particular types of assets and data from other industry sources, where necessary, to
develop mathematical models that describe the various costs of owning and operating
each type of asset over a range of years or potential replacement cycles.
We developed models for estimating capital costs and maintenance and repair (M&R)
costs based on regression analysis of actual Village data and other industry data available
to us. Because the Village owns only three backhoe loaders, it was necessary to bring
data for other sources into the analysis, as historical data on the Village's assets were
limited. Fuel costs were estimated based on actual Village fuel cost and fuel consumption
E
Report on
Optimal Vehicle Replacement Cycle Analyses
rate (in hours per gallon) data. Anticipated utilization was based on average utilization of
current Village assets, about 200 hours per year for backhoe loaders.
The metric we used to determine the optimal replacement cycle of an asset is equivalent
annual cost (EAC). The EAC of a capital asset is a uniform dollar amount, the net present
value of whose payments for a given number of years (e.g., a potential replacement cycle)
is equivalent to the net present value costs of owning and operating that asset over that
number of years. The replacement cycle with the lowest EAC is the cycle that results in
the lowest total cost of ownership of a given type of asset.
Once we identified the cycle that results in the minimum EAC, we evaluated the sensitivity
of this finding to changes in selected analysis parameters. For example, M&R costs are
predicted to be fairly high after these assets reach 10 years of age, but the actual costs
incurred can vary greatly. We tested various rates of increase in M&R costs to determine
how much this factor contributes to EAC. We also drew on our extensive fleet
management and operating experience to decide if a given type of asset should not be
replaced in accordance with the cycle that, strictly speaking, has the lowest EAC. Any
recommended deviations were based on consideration of "soft" costs factors such as
technological obsolescence and repair parts availability, which we did not attempt to
quantify.
ANALYSIS RESULTS
SUMMARY
The current replacement cycles, optimum replacement cycle result from our analysis, and
recommended replacement cycles (in years) for the Village's backhoe loaders are shown
in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1
Current and Recommended Replacement Cycles for Backhoe Loaders
3
Report on
Optimal Vehicle Replacement Cycle Analyses
The current replacement cycle of 15 years for the Village's backhoe loaders is longer than
the optimal replacement cycle of 11 years derived in our analysis. While it appears that
the Village has generally adhered to timely replacement of fleet assets, two of the
backhoe loaders in the Village's fleet are currently nearing or past the Village's
replacement age guidelines. These units are past the point in their lifecycle where it is
more expensive to defer replacement, and according to our analysis they have been
beyond this point for some time.
We recommend a replacement cycle between 10 and 12 years. At 10 years, the EAC
associated with an additional year is relatively small compared to changes in previous
years. For example, the Equivalent Annual Costs corresponding to replacement cycles of
ten, eleven, and twelve years are within $100, or less than one percent, of one another.
In graphical terms, we chose a range where the total cost of ownership curve flattens.
The reason for recommending a range of optimal replacement cycles, rather than a single
interval, is that M&R costs vary greatly among the three units in the Village's fleet. This
variation in M&R cost is by far the greatest factor causing variability in EAC. In 2016,
these costs ranged from a low of about $1,700 to a high of over $22,000. While older
assets account for the highest M&R costs, there was still great disparity in cost between
the oldest assets. Should the Village find that these high M&R costs are an aberration,'
12 years would be a reasonable replacement cycle. On the other hand, if the Village
continues to experience high costs of maintenance and repairs for its backhoe loaders,
we would recommend replacement at ten years.
There are two considerations that are driving this recommendation. First, we considered
the indirect costs described in the introduction. Second, our analysis is based on historical
cost data. As newer vehicles become more complex, effective and efficient repair requires
more highly trained and specialized technicians and, possibly, specialized equipment.
Many public works fleets we have worked with report an increased reliance on
dealerships for repair service, due to lack of technician training and special equipment
needed to perform repairs.
ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
There were certain parameters intrinsic to our analysis that we adjusted based on our
experience.
The Village charges a fully loaded labor rate of $75 per hour to quantify the costs of time
spent by Village maintenance technicians on fleet maintenance and repair activities.
Based on our extensive experience conducting activity -based cost analyses and
operating cost charge -back rate studies for municipal fleet maintenance programs, we
feel that this rate understates the Village's actual cost of maintenance and repair.
For example, our model predicts M&R costs of about $4,800 in the 10th year of life. See the full ORCA
results below for further reference.
IH
Report on
Optimal Vehicle Replacement Cycle Analyses
Accordingly, we used a labor rate of $100 per hour to translate historical labor hours
charged to work orders to costs in current year dollars.
The Village does not charge a markup on parts that are used in performing in-house
maintenance and repair services. We've found that appropriate markups for municipalities
with similar size and fleet composition tend to be about 20 to 30 percent. We included a
25 percent markup on parts in calculating total M&R costs.
We found little relationship between the age of a backhoe loader and its fuel consumption
rate. For this reason, we did not include any factors to account for changes in fuel
consumption, and fuel efficiency and prices did not affect the EAC.
ANALYSIS DETAILS
Residual Values
In order to determine the capital cost of replacing an asset in a given year, we estimate
sales proceeds that would be realized from that asset if it were sold that year, referred to
as the residual value. The lifecycle capital cost of the asset is the difference between the
original purchase price (plus upfitting costs, if applicable) and the residual value (minus
decommissioning and remarketing costs, if applicable).
There are four steps involved in developing a mathematical model that projects residual
values:
• Acquire actual used asset sales results.
• Adjusting for inflation, define the sales proceeds as a percentage of the initial
purchase price for each asset sale.
• Perform regression analysis and determine an equation that best fits the data
points using age and, if available, accumulated mileage as independent variables
and percentage of original purchase price as the dependent variable.
• Evaluate and interpret the resulting equation based on our experience as well as
actual sales results.
In the case of this analysis, there were insufficient used asset sales data to develop
reliable models. Consequently, we utilized models that were developed for similar asset
classes for other municipalities and confirmed these models against the Village's actual
used asset sales proceeds where they were available. In our model, the market value of
a backhoe loader declines about 5 percent per year after the first two years of life.
M
Maintenance and Repair Costs
Report on
Optimal Vehicle Replacement Cycle Analyses
Developing mathematical models for projecting M&R costs is similar to developing the
residual value models:
• M&R data are acquired, including labor hours, parts cost, sublet repair cost, and
vehicle miles travelled, for one-year periods, for individual assets in the fleet.
• Total M&R cost is calculated for each individual asset for each year, expressed in
today's dollars by correcting for inflation and applying a current mechanic hourly
labor rate to labor hours.
• Annual total M&R costs are divided by annual fuel consumption in gallons, to arrive
at the M&R cost per gallon of fuel consumed. Fuel consumption serves as a proxy
for asset utilization. Engine hour readings are not used because meter readings
are often unreliable.
• A regression analysis is performed with age as the independent variable and M&R
cost per gallon of fuel consumed as the dependent variable.
• The final equation is interpreted and evaluated based on our experience and how
well it represents the actual data.
In the case of this analysis, there were insufficient M&R data available to develop reliable
models, due to the small number of assets being considered. As with residual values, we
utilized models that were developed for similar asset classes for other municipalities and
confirmed the soundness of these models against the data provided by the Village. Exhibit
2 shows actual M&R costs per gallon of fuel consumed, and the projected costs by age
(in years) for backhoe loaders owned by Mt. Prospect and by a similar municipal fleet.
Note that the model's projections are in the central region of the dispersion pattern of the
actual costs.
0
$180
$150
$140
$120
Report on
Optimal Vehicle Replacement Cycle Analyses
Exhibit 2
Annual M&R Costs per Gallon of Fuel Consumed
$50
$40
$20
$0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Age (years)
• Mt Prospect Units • Similar Municipal Fleet Model
Optimal Replacement Cycles
18
The residual value and M&R cost models are incorporated into a Life Cycle Analysis,
along with projections of fuel costs. The full results for Mt. Prospect's backhoe loaders
are shown on the following page.
7
IL
oo°
N
N
O
69
O
W
O
N
O
Lo
EH
m
N
M
o
c
co
ffl
M
O
fl
o)
N
fl
Lm
Efl
o
N
V
V
V
ffl
o
ffl
O
M
ffl
co
69
o
oq
n
N
n
N
V
ffl
o
o
NEO
co
O
cl)
O
Lo
n
N
O
�
ffl
o
M
�
CO
o
cl)
M
Mo
co
ol
Lq
oo N
V
O
�
ffl
o
o
�
o)
-
cl)
o
EH
o
O
O
m
M
o
o
Es
O
O
r
CO
O
cl)
EH
o
N
O
N
Es
o
V
O
O
O
EH
o
�
O
N
Es
O
N
N
co
co
V
M
CO
ffl
o
m
M
M
V
LO o
ffl
O
O
LO
69
N
O
69
O
Efl
ol
m
o)
O
co
Es
o
O
o
N
LO
O
o
O
m
o
O
Efl
o
N
LO
Efl
co
N
69
CO
o
ffl
o
O
O
LO
O
I�
ffl
r
N
Ln
ffl
O
V
O
ffl
LO
N
o
O
M
N
Efl
69
CO
O
M
6
M
V
69
o
o)
o
W
ffl
o
N
Efl
LX
M
06
69
69
ol
O
W
Efl
LO
Efl
o
69
o
oo
O
LO
M
O
Efl
LO
O
Efl
O
O
69
O
LO
N
o
LO
N
V
O
ffl
LO
N
O
ffl
CO
M
ffl
M
M
M
fl
0
o
ffl
o
W
V
ffl
o
N
LO
ffl
o
LO
EH
o
O
o
O
N
M
ffl
o o
O
M
M
ffl
O
O
M
M
ffl
o
Ooo _
fl
C (U
O
-ON^
(U ��
�.069
�0
f/1�
Q
S (6
N O
C)O
E.0
C
E U)
W
Ea
Ea
c6
D
a
V
a U
Q
O
LO
N
ffl
M
O
�
V
Ln
M
ffl
m
co
ffl
OO
V
M
Efl
o
O
fl
O
n
M
Efl
LOO
CO
O
LO
Efl
O
V
r_
N
ffl
M
o
69
N
V
o
N
ffl
o
co
V
ffl
LO
O
N
V
O
o
O
M
O
co
ffl
O
((O
co
ffl
o
O
N
ffl
V
N
ffl
o)
o
M o
�
ffl
CO
N
ffl
n
V
(D
o
O
M
N
o
CO
o
O
Es
M
W
M
O
O
o
M
V
O
M
Es
n
o
o
N
o
Es
0
M
M
O
O
fl
o
r
V
O
N
o
O
sLo
O
V
Lo
O
N
N
Lo
M
ffl
V
fl
oo
Lo
ffl
oo
ffl
N
O
o
V
N
I�
fl
Ooo
o
Cb
co O
CO
O
M
O
fl
O
r
co
O
O
o)
ffl
N
o
N
0
ffl
CO
o
ffl
o)
Lo
ffl
o
(
(O
N
ffl
V
LO
ffl
Lo
W
N
ffl
M
V
(D
o
N
O)
ffl
O
ffl
N
co
O
ffl
V
N
(D
n
O
ffl
CO
O
ffl
O
co
ffl
O
COO
ffl
O
V _
ffl
O
V _
ffl
((O
(D
W
Lo
Lo
N
ffl
LLo
N
ffl
(6 a o
o
C
C m
C
C (U O
O
o
C
Q U`` -N
QN
NN
EU N
SZ
N E
SZ O
(C6
C
LL
0 to
0
U
6
C
H
o
H U
�
Q
M o
O) Cl)
I� M
ffl ffl
O W
O N
V N_
CO
N
ffl ffl
M V
LO 0)
ffl ffl
o
V
V O
ffl ffl
o
O o
I� O
ffl ffl
N Ln
N
M N
ffl ffl
o M
O O
co LO
Es Es
�
M
W N
N Ln
M O
W O
Es Es
(D
O)
ffl
M o
N O
Es Es
V o
CO N
ffl ffl
N I�
V
ffl ffl
LN o
o) -
(D O
ffl ffl
O O
W o
ffl ffl
W O
O
r_ co
ffl ffl
M LO
� Ln
W O)
ffl ffl
oo
O M
M O
N N
ffl ffl
V
I� V
LO CO
N N
ffl ffl
LX) LX)
N N
LO LO
M M
Efl Efl
(6 o ffl C o
C U O ( 6 U
o
O
~ V w C
U Q
Q'
Report on
Optimal Vehicle Replacement Cycle Analyses
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Village's current guidelines on replacement of its backhoe loaders are three to five
years longer than the results of our analysis. Currently, two out of the total of three assets
are past the optimal replacement cycle, and are costing the Village money compared to
a replacement.
One limitation of analyses such as those described in this report, however, is that they
are based on historical cost data. In this case, the M&R data we used are for older
vehicles with a current average age of over a decade. Recent years have seen rapid
technological advancements and increasing vehicle complexity. These developments
suggest that the maintenance and repair of these newer vehicles, particularly as they age,
will require a higher level of technical expertise and specialized knowledge, and possibly
specialized equipment, in order for repairs to be completed effectively and efficiently.
As the Village of Mount Prospect experiences the loss of technical expertise in its
maintenance technician workforce due to the retirement of key personnel, we recommend
that the replacement cycle guidelines presented herein be monitored and occasionally
revisited, notwithstanding the results of our analyses, to determine if they should be
shortened so that the Village can avoid the need to make the potentially sizable
investments in technician training and tooling that the in-house performance of complex
repairs will require as the Village's next generation of fleet assets age.
0
Page 1 of 1
https://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/files/AWF35L805B3E/$file/Attachment%20F%20...6/21/2018
0February 7, 2018
VILLAGE OF MT PROSPECT
1700 W CENTRAL RD
MT PROSPECT, IL
8478705640
2018 John Deere 410L Backhoe Loader
NJPA Cooperative Contract 032515-JDC.
All the prices in the detailed sections are Per machine basis.
Machine Configuration
CodeDescriptionQtyUnit Price
1
0AB0T410L BACKHOE LOADER 126,797.00
1
1065ENGINE FT4 14,820.00
1
170CJDLINK 5YR TEMP LICENSE 50HR IN BASE
1
2035CAB 12,889.00
1
2401DECAL ENG W/ENG PACKET IN BASE
1
3065AXLE MFWD W/LIMITED SLIP IN BASE
1
4782TIRE ML500/70R24,ML340/80R18 2,282.00
1
5285CONTROL PILOT 2,594.00
1
5460COUPLER HYDRAULIC 7,317.00
1
5656BUCKET HD 24" 7.5CU FT 1,333.00
1
6020DIPPER EXTENDABLE 8,141.00
1
6230HYD,AUX W/1&2WAY FLOW, THUMB 5,196.00
1
7080LDR 1 LEVER HYD W/INT AUX 3,181.00
1
7685LDR BUCKET 1.32CY MULTIPURP 6,910.00
1
8485COUNTERWEIGHT 1250LB. 1,711.00
1
8685BATTERY DUAL W/JUMP POST 529.00
1
9045CHROME EXHAUST 173.00
1
9060MIRRORS INTERIOR 80.00
1
9080HEATER ENGINE COOLANT 110V 167.00
1
9110RIDE CONTROL 1,935.00
1
9116ROOF W/LED LIGHTS 1,025.00
1
9210CONSOLE LH W/CUP HOLDER 79.00
1
9235THUMB 42" LONG 6,487.00
1
9515FLUID SAMPLING PORTS 201.00
1
9916RADIO PREMIUM PACKAGE 1,320.00
1
9919SUN VISOR 92.00
1
9920MIRROR ETERIOR REAR VIEW 334.00
1
9965SEAT AIR SUSPENSION CLOTH 490.00
List Price $ 206,083.00
Discount44% $ 90,676.52
Net Price $ 115,406.48
Custom Jobs
CodeDescriptionQtyPrice
Dlr provide Pre-Delivery Inspection, Supplies and Fuel Fill1 1,250.00
Dealer Provided Delivery1 600.00
Labor for field installed kits1 4,418.00
Ext Warranty1 4,302.22
AT323580
BOOM PROTECTION PLATE1 423.22
AT431340
ANTI-WAG KIT1 342.33
AT451194
PIVOTABLE BEACON BRACKET1 72.22
AT437700
18" PIN ON BUCKET1 1,092.78
E-915AA
CORNER LED FLASHER (Transelectric)4 788.00
AT343969
ATTACHMENT COMBO VALVE1 448.89
Parts
SKYHOOK1 450.00
INDECO
HP1100 HAMMER WITH CAP & PINS1 17,420.00
SERVICE
ADD SWITCH DIVERTER FOR AUXILARY1 3,971.00
SERVICE
HYDRAULICS AND SET OF STUCCHI1 -
TRED ROC
F & R LEFT SIDE TIRE MOUNTED ON RIM1 4,388.00
PARTS
FULL PAPER MANUALS (TEST, SERVICE, PARTS)1 1,877.00
INDECO
ADDITIONAL CROSS CUT CHISEL POINT1 490.00
PM CONTRACT ENTER CONTRACT INFO HERE FOR QUOTE
1 -
Total Price $ 42,333.67
Quote Summary (per unit)
Item DescriptionPrices
Machine Net Price $ 115,406.48
Custom Jobs $ 42,333.67
Price per Machine $ 157,740.15
DestinationFreight Charge
Wauconda, IL 60084 $ 900.00
Total Net PriceQuantity (1)$ 158,640.15
Less Trade-in
2002 John Deere 410G with 3532 hours 20,000.00
Net Price less Trade-Ins$ 138,640.15
Warranty Terms
Remarks:
Please note that this quote is valid for 30 days. Purchase cards are accepted -- a 3% transaction fee will
be calculated into the PO total for the credit card invoice payment.
Cmazzoni@westsidetractorsales.com
Page 1 of 1
https://www.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/files/AWFU8X72B299/$file/Attachment%20%20...6/21/2018