HomeMy WebLinkAbout6. Village Manager's Report 02/18/2014Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
�M?/
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: WATER & SEWER SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2014
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF STANDBY EMERGENCY GENERATOR STATION 11
(CIP) — JOINT PURCHASE ($306,610)
Background
In the capital improvement program (CIP), there are funds available to provide diesel -
powered emergency generators for the Village's deep wells and pumping stations. The
deep wells and pumping stations are the Village's emergency water source in the event
that flow from the North West Suburban Municipal Joint Action Water Agency
(NSMJAWA) is disrupted. The generators installed as part of this program are designed
to power the entire booster station facility; including simultaneously running the deep
well and the booster pumps.
Presently diesel generators are installed at Stations 5 and 16 with the latest currently
being installed at Station 17. The current budget contains funds to purchase and install
an emergency generator at Booster Station 11. This will be the last generator
installation at the Booster Pumping Stations leaving Station 4 as the only station without
an emergency generator due to site space constraints.
With each generator, there will be a super critical muffler, a sound attenuated enclosure
to house the generator and an above - ground, fire - rated, 4,000 gallon concrete diesel
fuel storage tank. The physical size of these units (241 x 10'W x 8'H) makes it
impractical for the unit to be configured as a tow - behind portable and so the
specifications call for a permanent installation.
With the 2012 purchase, the Village used a joint purchasing arrangement with the
National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) to obtain the best competitive pricing. The
Village Code specifically provides that competitive bidding is not required when the
village, pursuant to its home rule powers, enters into a joint purchasing contract for
Bid Results for Standby Emergency Generator — Station 11(CIP) Joint Purchase
February 4, 2014
Page 2 of 3
materials, supplies, or equipment with another entity which has conducted competitive
bidding for those materials, supplies or equipment. Section 4.103G (2).
Staff requested current NJPA pricing for the Station 11 emergency generator with all
accessories identical to the system that was purchased in 2012.
Discussion
Patten Power Systems of Elmhurst, Illinois is the regional Caterpillar representative and
provided a NJPA quote of $306,610 for the 750 kW diesel generator and accessories
needed to provide standby power for Station 11.
The purchase price for the generator system obtained in 2012 was $300,760. The
increase in price of $5,850 dollars represents a 1.9% increase in price. An increase in
the generator price was the largest portion and this is a result of a contract wage rate
increase throughout Caterpillar.
Patten Power Systems has successfully worked with the Village on several recent
projects including the standby generator for the Village Hall and the generators at
Station 5, 16 and 17. Staff finds that Patten Power Systems of Elmhurst, Illinois is a
responsible provider and recommends that the Board award the NJPA joint purchase to
Patten Power Systems.
The final phase of this project would be to prepare the bid specifications to perform the
installation of the generator set at Station 11. A bid award for this work will be
forthcoming later this spring for the Board's consideration. Delivery of the generator will
take approximately 20 weeks or until mid to late June
Bid Results for Standby Emergency Generator — Station 11(CIP) Joint Purchase
February 4, 2014
Page 3 of 3
Recommendation
I recommend that the Village Board authorize staff to use the joint purchasing contract
through the National Joint Powers Alliance for the acquisition of a diesel standby
generator package from Patten Power Systems of Elmhurst, Illinois at a cost not to
exceed $306,610. Sufficient funds for this proposed purchase are available in current
2014 Budget.
Matt Overeem
Water & Sewer Superintendent
I Concur.
Semi P. Dorsey
Director of Public Works
MO/ meo
H: \Water \projects\2014 \generator 11 \emergency generator station 11 board award.docx
Mount
1 ?�
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: FORESTRY /GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2014
SUBJECT: BID RESULTS FOR:
TREE REPLACEMENT FURNISHING/PLANTING ($157,790)
and
CONSTRUCTION - RELATED TREE FURNISHING/PLANTING (18,000)
BACKGROUND
Bids were recently opened for two separate projects which require the provision and installation of
parkway trees. Bid prices were sought for a wide variety of tree species, in sizes ranging from 1 -1/2" to
5" in trunk diameter. For both projects, bid prices will be good for our Spring 2014 and Fall 2014
plantings. Bidders submitted a cost per tree to furnish, install and guarantee each tree. They also
submitted separate prices for "enhanced planting sites" which we may order on a small number of trees
being planted in very poor soil.
In the past, we would not have divided the purchase and installation of these trees into two separate
projects. We are doing so for the first time this year in an attempt to comply with new State of Illinois
interpretations regarding the payment of prevailing wages. The Village Board may recall previous
discussions about staff frustration with unclear guidelines for the application of Illinois Prevailing
Wage laws to tree and landscape projects. In May 2013, the Illinois Department of Labor published
some clarifying language on their website. Based on this language, it appears we still do not need to
require our contractors to pay IDOL'S prevailing wages on tree plantings installed as replacements for
dead, dying and structurally unsound trees. However, it appears we do need to start requiring the
payment of IDOL'S prevailing wages for replacement of trees removed due to utility and roadway
work. For this reason, we developed two sets of specifications that differ only in this respect.
BID RESULTS
Eighteen invitational bid packets containing both sets of specifications were mailed. A separate "Bid
Notice" for each project was published in a local newspaper. A mandatory pre -bid conference for both
projects was held for interested contractors on January 17, 2014; five contractors attended. Sealed bids
were opened on January 27, 2014. Bid results from both projects are seen in Attachments A and B.
DISCUSSION
At this time, we do not know how many trees we will need to order for either project. Based on last
year's parkways tree removals, we estimate we may need about 800 -900 trees for the Tree
Page 2 of 2
Bid Results- -Tree Plant Replacement/Construction
February 12, 2014
Replacement /Furnishing project, and about 20 -30 trees for the Construction- related Tree Furnishing/
Planting project.
For the Tree Replacement project, we received bids from three contractors: Huffman Landscape, KGI
Landscaping and Acres Group. No one contractor provided prices on all sizes and species listed on our
bid sheet, nor were any of the bidders low on every species they quoted. Both Huffman Landscape and
KGI Landscaping have successfully planted many trees for us in the past, and they are about evenly
split as to the number of low bid prices they submitted. Acres Group, on the other hand, was low on
only a small number of sizes and species. Acres has not worked for us before, although we have
purchased high - quality trees from Goodmark Nursery in the past ( Goodmark and Acres are separate
companies owned by the same owner, and Acres submitted to us some references for Goodmark's
"furnishing only" municipal contracts). Acres submitted four references, but only one was for a
municipal contract of similar size and nature to our contract. I would not recommend taking a chance
on awarding a large contract to Acres this year, but since their prices were low on a couple of
species /sizes that no one else had available, I would like to have the option of placing a small trial
order with Acres this year.
For the Construction - Related project, it should be noted that Acres Group did not submit a bid, and
KGI's bid was determined to be non - responsive. (Unfortunately, though KGI did submit an envelope
properly marked for the Construction - Related bid, upon opening it we discovered that, instead of the
required bid sheet, they had accidentally enclosed a duplicate copy of their bid sheet for our CDBG
tree planting project.) Therefore Huffman Landscape submitted the only valid bid for this project.
BID RECOMMENDATIONS
There is a total of $175,790 in various tree planting accounts in the 2014 Village budget.
For the Tree Replacement Furnishing /Planting project, I recommend that we split the order among
Huffman Landscape, KGI Landscaping and Acres Group. Each tree will be ordered from the lowest
bidder for that size and species, and the award to Acres will only be for a small quantity of trees.
For the Construction - Related Tree Furnishing and Planting project, I recommend that we order the
necessary species from the sole bidder, Huffman Landscape.
The total of all expenditures for both contracts will not exceed $175,790.
Sandy Clark
I concur:
Sean P.
of Public Works
H: \FORESTRY \WORD\2014\PLANT \MEMO -TREE PLT REPL AND CONST BID RECOMMEND 2014.DOC
Bid Results - Parkway Tree Replacement Furnishing and Planting - January 27, 2014 Attachment A
Species
DBH
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Huffman Landsca a
KGI Lan scaping
Acres Grou
Hedge Maple
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Autumn Blaze, Marmo or
1.5"
$155.00
100
$285.00
100
Celebration Freeman Maple
2"
$190.00
100
$340.00
50
2.5"
$245.00
50
$422.00
50
Paperbark Maple
1.5"
$180.00
50
$175.00
50
$295.00
100
2"
$230.00
25
$245.00
25
$355.00
25
2.5"
Miyabe Maple
1
$285.00
100
2"
2.5"
Purpleblow Maple
15"
2"
2.5"
Greencolumn Black Maple
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Crimson King Norway
1.5"
$180.00
25
$129.00 A
200
$300.00
25
Maple
2'•
2.5"
$497.00
10
Emerald Queen or Emerald
1.5"
Luster Norway Maple
2"
2.5"
Columnar Norway Maple
1.5"
$285.00
10
2"
2.5"
Cleveland Norway Maple
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Globe Norway Maple
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Green Mountain Sugar
1.5"
$170.00
100
$285.00
100
Maple
2"
$180.00
100
$340.00
100
2.5"
$230.00
100
$497.00
100
Legacy Sugar Maple
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Black Alder
1.5"
$170.00
50
$285.00
50
2"
$185.00
50
$340.00
50
2.5"
Forest Prince or Autumn
1.5 ..
$285.00
50
Brillance Serviceberry
2"
2.5"
'Spring Flurry' Serviceberry
1.5"
$205.00
50
$285.00
50
2 "
2.5"
American Hornbeam
1.5"
$175.00
30
(Musclewood)
2 „
2.5"
$285.00
30
'Chicagoland', 'Windy City'
1.5"
$155.00
50
or Common Hackberry
2"
$211.00
30
2.5"
$223.00
50
Katsura Tree
1.151,
$215.00
50
2"
2.5"
H:\ Forestry\EXCEL\2014 \PLANT\BID - RESULT - SHEET - REPLACEMENT -NO HIGH LIGHTS.xlsx.xls 1
Bid Results - Parkway Tree Replacement Furnishing and Planting - January 27, 2014 Attachment A
Species
DBH
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Huffman Landsca a
KGI Lan dsca in
Acres Grou
Eastern Redbud
1.5"
$169.00
50
2"
2.5"
Turkish Filbert
1.5"
$175.00
30
2"
2.5"
"Golden Glory' dogwood
1.5"
$175.00
50
$195.00
50
$285.00
50
(tree form)
2"
$185.00
50
$340.00
50
25"
$230.00
50
$403.00
50
American Yellowwood
1.5"
$210.00
25
$338.00
40
2 "$210.00
20
2.5"
Thornless Cockspur
1.5"
Hawthorn
2"
2.5"
$350.00
50
Riversii Purple Beech
1.5"
2 "
$290.00
10
$412.00
10
2.5..
$370.00
10
$530.00
10
Autumn Gold Ginkgo
15"
$190.00
30
$270.00
10
$360.00
100
2"
$255.00
100
$280.00
10
$408.00
100
2.5"
Princeton Sentry Ginkgo
1.5"
$190.00
30
$270.00
100
$360.00
100
2"
$255.00
100
$280.00
100
$408.00
50
2.5"
Skyline, Shademaster or
1.5"
$145.00
100
$262.00
100
Sunburst Honeylocust
2"
$307.00
100
2.5"
$362.00
100
Kentucky Coffeetree
1.5"
$165.00
100
$154.00
20
$295.00
100
2"
$205.00
20
$230.00
50
$370.00
100
2.5"
$270.00
50
JC McDaniels or Espresso
1.5"
$175.00
50
$200.00
50
$300.00
50
Kentucky Coffeetree
2„
$215.00
25
$230.00
50
$370.00
20
2.5"
Tuliptree
1.5"
$165.00
100
$285.00
100
2"
$195.00
50
$343.00
10
2.5"
$410.00
30
Summertime' Amur
1.5"
$185.00
20
Maackia
2"
2.5"
Sentinel Crabapple
1.5"
2"
2.5"
White Angel, Donald
1.5"
$135.00
30
$174.00
20
$270.00
50
Wyman, or Ormiston Roy
2„
$186.00
50
Crabapple
2.5"
$200.00
50
Jackii Crabapple
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Adams Crabapple
1.5"
2 "
$160.00
50
2.5"
$164.00
30
'Cardinal' Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
2"
2.5"
'Firebird' Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
$179.00
25
$285.00
25
2.0"
2.5"
H:\ Forestry\EXCEL\2014 \PLAN1'\BID - RESULT - SHEET - REPLACEMENT -NO HIGHLIGHTS.xisx.xls 2
Bid Results - Parkway Tree Replacement Furnishing and Planting - January 27, 2014 Attachment A
Species
DBH
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Bid Price 7 7A
il. Qty.
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Huffman Landsca a
KGI Landscaping
Acres Group
Prairifire Crabapple
1.5"
$150.00
20
$270.00
100
2"
2.5"
Purple Prince Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
$270.00
50
2"
2.5"
Red Jewel Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
$170.00
50
2"
$176.00
40
2.5"
$180.00
10
Adirondack Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
$155.00
10
2 "
2.5"
Harvest Gold Crabapple
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Royal Raindrops Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
$180.00
50
$270.00
50
2"
2.5"
Sugar Tyme Crabapple
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Dawn Redwood
1.5"
$175.00
30
2"
2.5"
Blackgum
15"
$200.00
50
$219.00
50
$330.00
50
2"
$250.00
50
$265.00
50
$385.00
50
2.5"
Ironwood (Hophornbeam)
1.5"
$195.00
50
$174.00
20
$330.00
50
2"
$289.00
50
2.5"
Persian Ironwood 'Vanessa'
1.5"
2 „
$337.00
200
2.5"
$398.00
10
Macho Amur Corktree
1.5"
2 "$318.00
100
2.5"
Bloodgood, Ovation or
Exclamation London
1,51.
$165.00
100
$200.00
100
$285.00
100
2"
$190.00
200
$220.00
200
Planetree
2.5"
Schubert Chokecherry (tree
1.5"
$145.00
100
$140.00
20
$270.00
100
form)
2"
$175.00
100
$159.00
50
2.5"
$205.00
50
Bradford or Autumn Blaze
1.5"
$165.00
30
$199.00
30
$285.00
30
Gallery Pear
2"
2.5"
Redspire Callery Pear
1.5"
2"
2.5"
$275.00
20
Chanticleer or Cleveland
1 5"
$155.00
30
$167.00
10
$282.00
100
Select Callery Pear
2 "
$333.00
100
2.5"
Sawtooth Oak
1.5"
2"
2.5"
White Oak
1.5"
$200.00
100
$210.00
100
$308.00
100
2 "
2.5"
H :\Forestry\EXCEL\2014\PLANT\BID- RESULT - SHEET - REPLACEMENT -NO HIGHLIGHTS.xlsx.xls 3
Bid Results - Parkway Tree Replacement Furnishing and Planting - January 27, 2014 Attachment A
Species
DBH
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Huffman Landsca a
KGI Lan dsca in
Acres Grou
Northern Red Oak
1.5"
$170.00
100
$293.00
60
2 „
$348.00
100
2.5"
Shingle Oak
1.5"
$170.00
50
$190.00
50
$293.00
50
2 "
$198.00
10
2.5"
Bur Oak
1.5"
$180.00
50
$300.00
50
2 "
2.5"
Chinkapin Oak
1.5"
$180.00
50
$300.00
25
2"
2.5"
English Oak
1.5"
2"
2.5"
$276.00
10
Heritage 'Clemons' Oak
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Regal Prince'Long' Oak
1.51,
$180.00
100
$200.00
100
$300.00
100
2 "
$230.00
100
2.5"
Bur /Swamp White Oak
1.5"
$180.00
20
$200.00
25
$300.00
25
Hybrid
2"
2.5"
Chicago Blues' Black
1.5"
Locust
2 "
2.5"
Common Sassafras
1.5"
$458.00 B
30
2"
2.5"
Ivory Silk Tree Lilac
1.5"
$165.00
100
$285.00
100
2 „
$340.00
100
2.5"
China Snow or Summer
1.5"
$165.00
100
$285.00
50
Charm Tree Lilac
2 „
2.5"
Bald Cypress
1.5"
$165.00
50
$280.00
50
2 „
$307.00
30
2.5"
$362.00
50
Greenspire or Glenleven
1.5"
Littleleaf Linden
2"
$180.00
50
2.5"
$200.00
50
Summer Sprite Linden
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Redmond Linden
1.5"
$165.00
70
$278.00
70
2 "
$180.00
50
$307.00
50
2.5"
$200.00
50
Sterling Silver Linden
1.5"
$155.00
50
$285.00
50
2 „
$318.00
30
2.5"
Douglas' or'American
1.5"
$155.00
50
$151.00
10
$278.00
50
Sentry' American Linden
2"
$307.00
100
2.5"
$189.00
20
Accolade American Elm
1.5"
$155.00
50
2 "
2.5"
H:\ Forestry\EXCEL\2014 \PLAN1'\BID - RESULT - SHEET - REPLACEMENT -NO HIGHLIGHTS.xlsx.xls 4
Bid Results - Parkway Tree Replacement Furnishing and Planting - January 27, 2014 Attachment A
Species
DBH
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Huffman Landsca a
KGI Lan dsca in
Acres Grou
Triumph American Elm
1.5"
$155.00
150
$285.00
50
2"
$198.00
10
$333.00
100
2.5"
'Valley Forge' American Elm
1.5"
$165.00
50
$285.00
50
2 „
$333.00
50
2.5"
Homestead Elm
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Princeton' American Elm
1.5"
$155.00
100
$285.00
50
2"
$219.00
50
$333.00
50
2.5"
Frontier Elm
1.5"
$165.00
25
$154.00
25
$285.00
25
2"
2.5"
Lacebark Elm
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Commendation Elm
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Patriot Elm
1.5"
$155.00
30
2"
2.5"
Danada Charm Elm
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
'Regal' Elm
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Miscellaneous Trees 3"
and Larger
Autumn Blaze, Marmo or
3
Celebration Freeman Maple
4 "
$750.00
50
5 „
$1.050.00
100
Crimson King Norway
3 "
$295.00 A
50
Maple
4"
5"
Emerald Queen Norway
3 "
Maple
4"
$209.00
20
$750.00
50
5 „
$1050.00
50
Columnar Norway Maple
3 "
$199.00
50
4"
$400.00
15
5"
Sugar Maple
3"
$240.00
50
4"
$320.00
10
5 "
Miyabe Maple
3 ,
4"
$315.00
50
$750.00
200
5 „
$1050.00
30
Chicagoland, Windy City or
$234.00
20
Common Hackberry
j4"
$315.00
40
$975.00
12
H: \Forestry\EXCEL\2014 \PLANT\BID- RESULT - SHEET - REPLACEMENT -NO HIGHLIGHTS.xlsx.xls 5
Bid Results - Parkway Tree Replacement Furnishing and Planting - January 27, 2014 Attachment A
Species
DBH
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Bid Price
Avail. Qty.
Huffman Landsca a
KGI Lan dsca in
Acres Grou
Autumn Gold Ginkgo
3"
4"
5 "
Princeton Sentry Ginkgo
3"
4"
5"
Skyline or Shademaster
3"
$480.00
300
Honeylocust
4 „
$299.00
50
$795.00
120
5 „
$1095.00
6
Kentucky Coffeetree
3"
$328.00
20
4"
5"
Adams Crabapple
3"
$225.00
15
4"
5"
Prarifire Crabapple
3"
4"
5"
Purple Prince Crabapple
3"
4"
5"
Red Jewel Crabapple
3"
$200.00
15
4"
5 "
White Angel, Donald
3"
$225.00
10
Wyman or Ormiston Roy
4 "
Crabapple
5"
Bloodgood, Ovation or
3"
$532.00
30
Exclamation London
4
Planetree
5"
Bradford or Autumn Blaze
3"
Callery Pear
4 „
5 "
Redspire or Chanticleer
3"
Gallery Pear
4 „
5"
Ivory Silk Tree Lilac
3"
4 "
5"
Greenspire Littleleaf Linden
3"
$250.00
50
$480.00
30
4 "$295.00
50
$750.00
200
5 „
$1,050.00
100
Sterling Silver Linden
3"
$289.00
10
4 ,
$430.00
20
5"
Additional Cost Per Tree
for Enhanced Planting
Sites
1 -1/2" tree
$30.00
$40.00
$75.00
2" tree
$40.00
$50.00
$100.00
2 -1/2" tree
$50.00
$70.00
$150.00
3" tree
$90.00
$200.00
4" tree
$110.00
$400.00
5" tree
$140.00
$600.00
Substitutions /Notes
A. Subroyal Red Norway Maple
B. In container
H : \Forestry\EXCEL\2014 \PLANT\BID- RESULT - SHEET - REPLACEMENT -NO HIGHLIGHTS.xlsx.xis 6
Bid Results - Parkway Tree Construction - Related Furnishing and Planting- January 27, 2014 Attachment B
Species
DBH
Bid Price I Avail. Qty.
Huffman Landscape
Hedge Maple
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Autumn Blaze, Marmo or Celebration Freeman Maple
1.5"
$155.00
100
2"
$190.00
100
2.5"
$245.00
50
Paperbark Maple
1.5"
$180.00
50
2"
$230.00
25
2.5"
Miyabe Maple
1.5"
$165.00
100
2"
2.5"
Purpleblow Maple
1 5"
2 "
2.5"
Greencolumn Black Maple
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Crimson King Norway Maple
1.5"
$180.00
25
2 "
2.5"
Emerald Queen or Emerald Luster Norway Maple
1.5 1.
2"
2.5"
Columnar Norway Maple
1.51,
2 "
2.5"
Cleveland Norway Maple
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Globe Norway Maple
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Green Mountain Sugar Maple
1.5"
$170.00
100
2"
$190.00
100
2.5"
$230.00
100
Legacy Sugar Maple
1.5 ..
2"
2.5"
Black Alder
1.5"
$170.00
50
2"
$185.00
50
2.5"
Forest Prince or Autumn Brillance Serviceberry
15 1,
2 "
2.5"
'Spring Flurry' Serviceberry
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
American Hombeam (Musclewood)
1.5"
$175.00
50
2 "
2.5"
'Chicagoland', 'Windy City' or Common Hackberry
1.5"
$155.00
50
2"
2.5"
Katsura Tree
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Eastern Redbud
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Turkish Filbert
1.5"
$175.00
30
2 "
2.5"
"Golden Glory' dogwood (tree form)
1.5"
$175.00
50
2"
$185.00
50
2.5"
$230.00
50
H: \Forestry\EXCEL \2014 \PLANT\B I D- RESULT - SHEET - CONSTRUCTION- RELATED.xisx
Bid Results - Parkway Tree Construction - Related Furnishing and Planting- January 27, 2014 Attachment B
Species
DBH
Bid Price Avail. Qty.
Huffman Landscape
American Yellowwood
1.5"
$210.00
25
2 "
2.5"
Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Riversii Purple Beech
1.5"
2 „
2.5"
Autumn Gold Ginkgo
1.5"
$190.00
30
2"
$255.00
100
2.5"
Princeton Sentry Ginkgo
1.5"
$190.00
30
2"
$255.00
100
2.5"
Skyline, Shademaster or Sunburst Honeylocust
1.5"
$145.00
100
2"
2.5"
Kentucky Coffeetree
1.5"
$165.00
100
2"
$205.00
20
2.5"
JC McDaniels or Espresso Kentucky Coffeetree
1.5"
$175.00
50
2"
$215.00
25
2.5"
Tuliptree
1.5"
$165.00
100
2"
$195.00
50
2.5"
Summertime' Amur Maackia
1.5"
$185.00
20
2 "
2.5"
Sentinel Crabapple
1.51,
2 "
2.5"
White Angel, Donald Wyman, or Ormiston Roy Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
2 "
2.5"
Jackii Crabapple
1 5"
2 "
2.5"
Adams Crabapple
1.51,
2"
2.5"
'Cardinal' Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
2 "
2.5"
'Firebird' Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
2.0"
2.5"
Prairifire Crabapple
1 5"
2"
2.5"
Purple Prince Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
2 "
2.5"
Red Jewel Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
2"
2.5"
Adirondack Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
2 "
2.5"
Harvest Gold Crabapple
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Royal Raindrops Crabapple
1.5"
$135.00
30
2 "
2.5"
H: \Forestry\EXCEL\2014 \PLANT\B I D- RESULT - SHEET - CONSTRUCTION- RELATED.xlsx
Bid Results - Parkway Tree Construction - Related Furnishing and Planting- January 27, 2014 Attachment B
Species
DISH
Bid Price I Avail. Qty.
Huffman Landscape
Sugar Tyme Crabapple
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Dawn Redwood
$175.00
30
Blackgum
$200.00
50
E5
$250.00
50
2.
Ironwood (Hophombeam)
$195.00
50
Persian Ironwood 'Vanessa'
15 ..
2 "
2.5"
Macho Amur Corktree
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Bloodgood, Ovation or Exclamation London Planetree
1.5"
$165.00
100
2"
$190.00
200
2.5"
Schubert Chokecherry (tree form)
1.5"
$145.00
100
2"
$175.00
100
2.5"
Bradford or Autumn Blaze Callery Pear
1.5"
$165.00
30
2"
2.5"
Redspire Callery Pear
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Chanticleer or Cleveland Select Callery Pear
1.5"
$155.00
30
2 "
2.5"
Sawtooth Oak
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
White Oak
1.5"
$200.00
100
2 "
2.5"
Northern Red Oak
1,5"
$170.00
100
2 "
2.5"
Shingle Oak
1.5"
$170.00
50
2"
2.5"
Bur Oak
1,5"
$180.00
50
2 "
2.5"
Chinkapin Oak
1.5"
$180.00
50
2 "
2.5"
English Oak
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Heritage'Clemons' Oak
1 5"
2 "
2.5"
Regal Prince'Long' Oak
15"
$180.00
100
2 "
2.5"
Bur /Swamp White Oak Hybrid
1.5"
$180.00
20
2"
2.5"
Chicago Blues' Black Locust
1 5"
2 "
2.5"
H: \Forestry\EXCEL\2014 \PLANT\B I D- RESULT -SH EET- CONSTRUCTION- RELATED.xlsx
Bid Results - Parkway Tree Construction - Related Furnishing and Planting- January 27, 2014 Attachment B
Species
DBH
Bid Price I Avail. Qty.
Huffman Landscape
Common Sassafras
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Ivory Silk Tree Lilac
1.5"
$165.00
100
2 "
2.5"
China Snow or Summer Charm Tree Lilac
1.5"
$165.00
100
2 "
K2.5"
2.5"
Bald Cypress
1.5"
$165.00
50
2"
Greenspire or Glenleven Littleleaf Linden
1.5"
2"
2.5"
Summer Sprite Linden
1 5"
2"
2.5"
Redmond Linden
1.5"
$165.00
70
2 "
2.5"
Sterling Silver Linden
1,5"
$155.00
50
2 "
2.5"
Douglas' or'American Sentry' American Linden
1.5"
$155.00
50
2 "
2.5"
Accolade American Elm
1.5"
$155.00
50
2"
2.5"
Triumph American Elm
1.5"
$155.00
150
2 "
2.5"
'Valley Forge' American Elm
1.5"
$165.00
50
2 "
2.5"
Homestead Elm
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Princeton' American Elm
1.5"
$155.00
100
2 "
2.5"
Frontier Elm
1.5"
$165.00
25
2 "
2.5"
Lacebark Elm
1 5"
2"
2.5"
Commendation Elm
1.5"
2 "
2.5"
Patriot Elm
1.5"
$155.00
30
2 "
2.5"
Danada Charm Elm
1.5"
2"
2.5"
'Regal' Elm
1 5"
2 "
2.5"
Miscellaneous Trees 3" and Larger
Autumn Blaze, Marmo or Celebration Freeman Maple
Y
4 "
5 "
Crimson King Norway Maple
3 „
4 "
5 "
H: \Forestry\EXCEL \2014\PLANT\BI D -RESU LT -SH EET- CONSTRUCTION- RELATED.xlsx
Bid Results - Parkway Tree Construction - Related Furnishing and Planting- January 27, 2014 Attachment B
Species
DBH
Bid Price I Avail. qty.
Huffman Landscape
Emerald Queen Norway Maple
3"
4"
5 "
Columnar Norway Maple
4 "
5"
Sugar Maple
3"
4"
5 "
Miyabe Maple
3"
4 "
5 "
Chicagoland, Windy City or Common Hackberry
3"
4 "
5 "
Autumn Gold Ginkgo
3"
4"
5"
Princeton Sentry Ginkgo
3"
4 "
5 "
Skyline or Shademaster Honeylocust
3"
4 "
5 "
Kentucky Coffeetree
3"
4 "
5 "
Adams Crabapple
3"
4"
5"
Prarifire Crabapple
3"
4 "
5 "
Purple Prince Crabapple
3"
4"
5"
Red Jewel Crabapple
3"
4 "
5 "
White Angel, Donald Wyman or Ormiston Roy Crabapple
3"
4 "
5 "
Bloodgood, Ovation or Exclamation London Planetree
3"
4 "
5 "
Bradford or Autumn Blaze Callery Pear
3"
4 "
5"
Redspire or Chanticleer Callery Pear
3"
4"
5 "
Ivory Silk Tree Lilac
3"
4"
5 "
Greenspire Littleleaf Linden
3"
4 "
5"
Sterling Silver Linden
3"
4 "
5"
Additional Cost Per Tree for Enhanced Planting Sites
$30.00
1 -1/2" tree
2" tree
$40.00
2 -1/2" tree
$50.00
3" tree
4" tree
5" tree
H: \Forestry\EXCEL \2014 \PLANT\B I D -RESU LT- SHEET - CONSTRUCTION- RELATED.xlsx
Mount Prospect Public Works Department @.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TM CM UM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: FORESTRY /GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2014
SUBJECT: BID RESULTS - PARKWAY TREE STUMP REMOVALS - $152,634
BACKGROUND
Sealed bids for parkway tree stump removals were opened on February 3, 2014. This contract
requires grinding tree stumps to a 10" - 12" depth, removing the grindings, and restoring the area
with topsoil and grass seed. This year, in order to expedite tree planting near existing stumps, we
also asked for prices for an additional surcharge to grind deeply enough to accommodate the root
ball of a new tree planting. We also included a provision which will allow us to extend the contract
for a second and a third year at the same bid prices, if both the contractor and Village agree.
BID RESULTS
Sixteen bids were distributed and a notice was published in a local newspaper. A mandatory pre -bid
meeting was held on January 24, 2014, which nine prospective bidders attended. Four bids were
received, and two no bid letters. Bid results are attached.
DISCUSSION
For this contract, quality control is very important, as well as being able to complete the required
amount of stumps within a fairly narrow window of time each spring and fall. Most of the stump
removals and restorations occur in front of our residents' homes, and therefore quality of work is of
the upmost importance. Additionally, many stump sites are planned planting sites for 2014, making
expeditious stump removals critical to our overall operations.
At this time we do not know how many stumps will need removal. We removed approximately
1000 stumps in 2013 and anticipate removing approximately the same amount this year, as EAB
losses continue. In the bid specifications we estimated that 12,000 diameter inches of stumps would
need removal, with 7000 inches in the 0 -24" diameter range and 5000 inches in the 25" and larger
diameter size class. The specifications were written to allow us to assign stumps, up to the full
amount budgeted.
Unfortunately, the lowest bidder, Fleck's Landscaping, failed to provide four satisfied municipal
references for comparable work, as required in the specifications. In fact, they did not provide and'.
satisfied references for stump removal work. Additionally, the required equipment list that Fleck's
submitted showed only that they own one stump grinder and assorted hand tools; this is nowhere
Page 2 of 2
Bid Results — Parkway Tree Stump Removals - $152,634
February 12, 2014
near the equipment needed to complete a project this size in an expeditious manner. For the above
reasons, we are recommending that the Fleck's bid be considered non- responsive.
Director of Public Works
The second low bidder, Kramer Tree Specialists, Inc., has worked successfully for us in the past on
our Parkway Stump Removal Contracts in 1998, 2000 and 2007. Kramer Tree is our current
Parkway Tree Trimming contractor, and they have successfully completed many other contracts for
us in the past (including Parkway Tree Removal, Creek Cleaning, and Tree Wound and Stub
Repair). Additionally, Kramer Tree capably worked for us on an emergency basis after storms in
2007, 2011, and 2012, bringing in hauling equipment and a large tub grinder. Finally, Kramer Tree
supplied with their bid numerous glowing references for stump removal work, and an equipment list
that shows they own the resources necessary to successfully complete our contract (including 10
stump grinders).
BID RECOMMENDATION
There is $152,634 allocated for contractual stump removal in the 2014 budget. I recommend award
of a possible three -year contract to the lowest qualified bidder, Kramer Tree Specialists, Inc. Year
one will be in an amount not to exceed $152,634. If year one is successful, and a contract extension
is agreed to by the Village and the contractor, years two and three will be in whatever amount is
appropriated in the 2015 and 2016 budgets.
I concur:
S- Clark
Sean P. D as y
H:\Forestry\WORD\2014 \STUMP\MEMO - STUMP RECOMMEND 2014.doc
Co
N
G
o CL
4Z 4)
0
W m'a�N_ �
Q N F F- x x Fu F-
m ON Q
x
U)
X
v
M
N
N
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
_0
O
O
O
70
0
0
0
p
O
ci
°
a
LO
P
to
_0
O
O
c
C0
O
CO
C
N
M
O
O
a1
N
�
r
N
���
x
LU
(fl
EA
EA
i
W
Z
L")
CD
uj
U
"�
Cn
LO
t}
EA
Efl
a
n-
° o
° O
o
° O
° O
°
o
O
N
_
0
0
0
O
O
O
p
Lo
LO
70
LO
O
°
C O )
C
N
N_
L�
L )
O
N
N
V
A
N
ad
x
F-
d
N
x
69
61!)-
U)-
t.
W
E�
E1
LLB
d
O
O
N
U
ti
N
M
EA
Efl
60-
cn
�-
CD
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
p
O
O
V)
O
Lo
70
O
to
0
C
co
OU')
p
L
x
CO
L
x
EA
L
W
Efl
6
W
Q
O
O
�
�
Y
c
00
CD
't
c
'D
a
o-
° o
° o
° O
°
° O
° O
° O,
-0
O
_
N
O
O
O
O
�
O
N
00
m
N
O
O
O
�-
M
co
O
LO
It
.
LU
�
W
4a
H)
69-
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
Y
U
�
6ok
L
a
LL
o CL
4Z 4)
0
W m'a�N_ �
Q N F F- x x Fu F-
m ON Q
x
U)
X
v
M
N
N
m
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: VEHICLE /EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2014
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF ONE (1) NEW ARTICULATING AND OSCILLATING
TRACTOR ($116,017)
Background
In the current budget, there are funds available to replace sidewalk utility tractor 4508. 4508 is
a 1999 Trackless MT5 used by Public Works staff to remove snow in our downtown business
district and on sidewalks along Northwest Highway, Central Road, Route 83, and at various
other locations throughout the Village.
We have operated two (2) of these articulating and oscillating "Trackless" brand tractors over
the last 15 -20 years to accomplish the needed snow removal in a timely and effective manner.
These tractors have served the Village well based on reliability, performance and overall
versatility. All of the current attachments (snowblower, broom, and plow) can be utilized on the
new proposed tractor and can be changed out quickly. This versatility is critical to public works
operations; it will allow us to share attachments with an existing Trackless tractor and limit the
variety of stocked parts. Most importantly, it will enable operators to maneuver the tractor in
confined downtown spaces with little or no retraining. Purchasing a comparable tractor from a
different manufacturer would require us to purchase additional commonly stocked parts.
The Materials Management Division of the State of Minnesota has prepared bid specifications
for municipal utility tractors and sent them to several vendors that provide these types of
tractors. Each vendor submitted a competitive bid price for the specific manufacturer /model
they sell. The State of Minnesota has made this contract available to its state agencies and to
members of its state's Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) program at the same prices,
terms, and conditions. I have reviewed the specifications and field- demonstrated another
manufacturer's model to insure the new Trackless machine will continue to be the most cost
effective choice available for our needs.
Replacement Policy
This equipment has been evaluated utilizing our detailed comprehensive replacement policy.
This policy uses a point -based criterion, which rates the following four (4) major factors to a
baseline when considering a unit for replacement: Age, mileage /hours, 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 that the vehicle should be recommended for
replacement.
This vehicle scored a total of twelve (12) points indicating a high rating, which is recommended
to be replaced. The vehicle condition evaluation form and summary report have been attached
as Exhibit A and B respectively. Additionally, I have included the life cycle cost analysis on
Exhibit C, which breaks out our total ownership costs.
February 7, 2014
Purchase of one (1) New Articulating and Oscillating Tractor ($116,017)
Page 2 of 2
Other Factors
• The articulating pivot assemblies are due for a major rebuild. The work is estimated to
cost approximately $4,000, including parts and labor.
• The hydraulic steel lines and hoses are fatigued from age /corrosion and are due for
complete replacement. This work is estimated to cost between $3,500 and $4,500.
• The high / low transmission is showing signs of wear and will need rebuilding soon. The
cost is estimated to range between $4,500 and $5,500, including parts and labor.
• The hydrostatic pump is due for a major overhaul. The cost is estimated to range
between $5,000 and $6,000, including parts and labor.
Discussion
Our local Trackless dealer, EJ Equipment, has offered the same pricing used on the State of
Minnesota's contract to us. EJ Equipment is the only Trackless dealer in Illinois, leading me to
believe the Village would not receive a better price from an out of state dealer by competitively
bidding this unique tractor on our own. In the past our Village Attorney has reviewed the
Minnesota contract details and states the Village Code permits the Village Board to waive
competitive bids in such a manner as it may approve, including its reliance on Minnesota's state
bid contract price, as it would be in the best interests of the Village. Therefore, it appears that
the most cost - effective procurement method for this tractor is to waive the competitive bidding
process and accept their proposal based on the State of Minnesota's contract (contract number
57282) pricing as released on January 1, 2013.
Purchase Recommendation
I am recommending waiving competitive bids for the purchase of one (1) new 2014 Trackless
MT6 Municipal Utility Tractor and accept the proposal submitted by EJ Equipment, Inc., of
Manteno, Illinois in an amount not to exceed $116,017.00. There are sufficient funds available
for this proposed purchase within the current Public Works Vehicle Replacement budget. We
received an optional trade in price of $11,000 . However, we anticipate a higher sales price
disposing the old tractor through GovDeals Internet auction.
) R. Breitzman
Vehicle /Equipment Superintendent
I concur.
Sean P. Dorsey
Director of Public Works
JB
Attachment
cc: Deputy Director of Public Works Jason Leib
H:\Administration \BIDS \RESULTS \Trackless Purchase4508MinnBidWVR2- 2014.doc
EXHIBIT A
Village of Mount Prospect
Vehicle/Equipment Condition Evaluation Form
Unit # 4508Assigned Dept. /Div.Public Works-Street
Year: 1999Make: TracklessModel: MT5Mileage: N/A
Hours: 2,450Date of Evaluation: 1/28/14Performed By: Jim Breitzman
SystemDiagnosisEstimated Repair Cost
EngineGood
TransmissionFair-Due for rebuild$5,000.00
DifferentialFair-Spider gears$2,000.00
Exhaust SystemFair-Muffler$400.00
Cooling SystemFair-Water pump$500.00
BrakesGood
TiresFair$1,000.00
SteeringFair-Pivot assemblies$4,000.00
AttachmentsFair$2,200.00
HVACGood
ElectricalFair-Aged wires$1,000.00
Body/FrameFair-Body damage & floor rot$2,000.00
InteriorFair-Seat Worn$600.00
Other-Hydraulic SystemPoor-Lines and pump$9,500.00
Total Estimated Repair Cost$28,200.00
Diagnosis CodeCode Description
GoodSystems are functioning well and no major repairs are expected.
FairSome major repairs are needed, but unit can remain in service a little longer
in current condition.
PoorMajor 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 # 4508Assigned Dept. /Div.Public Works-Street
Year: 1999Make: TracklessModel: MT5Mileage: N/A
Date of Evaluation: 1/28/14Performed By: Jim Breitzman
Ratings:
Unit age:2
15BasePolicy Age: 15Points:
Mileage/Hrs:2
N/A / 2,450Base Policy Mileage/Hrs: N/A/2,500Points:
Maintenance Cost:
÷
Repair and Maintenance Cost: $54,030.00Purchase Price: $67,800.00
4
Repair and Maintenance Percentage of Purchase Price: 80%Points:
Condition Evaluation:
(attach Vehicle Condition Evaluation Form)
÷
Estimated Repair Cost: $ 28,200.00Current Book Value: $ 15,000
4
Repair Cost Percentage of Current Book Value: 188%Points:
Total Ownership Cost Per Mile:
++
TotalPoints:12
(Lifetime Fuel R&MPurchase Price) $ 133,800
Less Salvage Value $15,000
Net Lifetime Costs $ 118,800
Divided by Mileage/Hours2,450hrs
Operating Cost Per Mile/Hour$48.49
Comments and other considerations:
This machine will require several major repairs in the near future to maintain reliable and safe
operation.
Superintendent’s recommendation: This machine has metits life expectancy and severalmajor
repairs will be needed if service life is extended any longer based on current 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.
Cost
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: FORESTRY /GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2014
SUBJECT: BID RESULTS -- STREETSCAPE CORRIDOR LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE-4110,675
BACKGROUND
Sealed bids for landscape maintenance of selected sites were opened on January 27, 2014. The work
required by the specifications includes a wide range of maintenance activities including spring cleanup,
mulching, weed control , turf herbicide /fertilization/aeration treatments, turf mowing, and shrub pruning
at all sites as needed. The majority of the sites are high - profile locations such as public buildings,
greenspaces in the downtown area, and the entire Union Pacific Railroad right of way. The personnel
who work on this job need to interact frequently and professionally with the general public as well as
business owners. With the diversified landscapes we have planted at many of these sites, the contractor's
personnel must also possess a high degree of knowledge about plant identification and the maintenance
needs of various plant species.
This contract will cover a 9 month period in 2014 and again in 2015 and 2016, assuming we are satisfied
with the work performed during the previous year. The bid documents provide that the contract can be
extended to 2015 and 2016 at the same bid prices, if both the Village and the contractor agree.
BID RESULTS
Twenty invitational bids were mailed and a notice published in the local newspaper. A mandatory pre -
bid meeting to explain the scope of the contract was held on January 17, 2014; representatives from ten
firms attended. A total of five bids and one "no bid" letter were received. Bid cost to maintain 73 sites
we propose for inclusion in this year's contract follows:
Contractor Total cost per y
Gambino Landscaping
KGI Landscaping
Milieu Design Inc.
Fleck's Landscaping
Moore Landscapes, Inc.
Grounds Keeper
$68,820
$83,855
$110,675
$110,863
$205,737
"No Bid" letter
Page 2 of 3
Bid Results — Streetscape Corridor Landscape Maintenance - $110,675
February 12, 2014
DISCUSSION
As explained earlier, this contract is for skilled work at high - profile locations. Over the years the
Village has made a significant financial investment in landscaping to improve the appearance of the
downtown and other highly visible locations. Frequent, knowledgeable maintenance is imperative to
maintain the health and appearance of these landscapes so they continue to reflect favorably on our
community's image.
We began the landscape maintenance contract some years ago, when the demands of maintaining our
many new landscape installations began to outpace the ability of staff to care for them properly. The
contract has grown in size and scope over time, as additional high- maintenance landscapes have been
installed. One of the challenges of contracting out this work is finding a company large enough and
skilled enough to commit an adequate number of well- trained staff to our contract for a long period of
time.
Unfortunately over the years, we have had three occasions where we awarded this contract to a new,
lowest cost bidder who apparently underestimated the amount of work required to comply with our
specifications. In all three cases the quality of work suffered substantially, and extensive staff time was
required while we tried to obtain compliance with our specifications. On one of those occasions, we
were able to take the contract away from the low bidder after a month or so, and the second lowest
bidder was able to fulfill the remainder of the contract. In that instance, we were fortunate because very
few well - qualified landscape contractors have the capability of taking on a job this large once the
growing season is underway. On the other two occasions, we honored the contracts but expended an
inordinate amount of staff time gaining compliance. In both instances, we did not work with that
contractor the following year.
For the January 27, 2014 bid opening, the apparent low bidder, Gambino Landscaping and Brick Paving,
Inc, did not meet the terms specified in the bid documents, and thus we cannot recommend them. We
required a 10% bid bond or certified check, as well as four satisfied municipal references for a contract
of like size and nature. Gambino did not provide a bid bond or certified check, and none of their
references were for municipal work of similar size and nature. Therefore I recommend that their bid be
considered non - responsive.
For similar reasons I am also recommending that the bid from the second low bidder, KGI Landscaping,
be considered non - responsive. First, in my opinion the reference list KGI submitted does not reflect
adequate experience for me to recommend them for a contract the size and nature of our current
landscape maintenance contract. KGI's reference list included four organizations, one of which was the
Village of Mount Prospect.
Though KGI has planted parkway trees for us for a number of years, they have never done landscape
maintenance for us, and I do not feel that completion of our tree planting projects is comparable work.
In order to assure the proper depth and width of tree planting pits and to make on -site decisions about
tree locations, we always send a staff certified arborist along with the contractor's tree planting crew.
Thus, the level of knowledge about plants and even the ability to communicate with the public is less
C:\ USERS \SDORSEY\APPDATA\ LOCAL\ MICROSOFT \WINDOWS \TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\NEJSK3XB\MEMO-
LMC BID RECOMMEND2 2014.DOC
Page 3 of 3
Bid Results— Streetscape Corridor Landscape Maintenance - $110,675
February 12, 2014
critical on the tree planting contracts because our staff member is present. With the landscape
maintenance contract we cannot provide this level of direction; the contractor's crew must have the
necessary knowledge to, for example, distinguish a perennial flower from a weed, and to know which
shrub species can be sheared and which cannot.
We did attempt to check the other three references that KGI submitted; two were municipalities and one
a school district. The school district never returned our calls despite multiple attempts. Municipality
number one was satisfied with KGI's work on a $60,000 contract which did include some landscape
maintenance, but also included snow plowing and sod restoration. Municipality number two was
satisfied with KGI's landscape maintenance work on several contracts, but those only ranged in size
from $20,000 - $40,000.
Additionally, from personal experience and some references, we know that KGI's equipment fleet is
aging and at times unreliable. We also noted that KGI's equipment list did not show that they own any
dump trucks, and these are required for mulching during the landscape maintenance contract.
The lowest qualified bidder, Milieu Design, Inc., submitted the required bid bond, a substantial
equipment list and a list of four references (from three municipalities and a school district). The
contracts were for full- service landscape maintenance and turf mowing, and they ranged in size from
$54,000 to $120,000. We contacted the references, and all were favorable. Three of the four references
actually told us they recently renewed Milieu for multi -year contracts due to their initial performance.
Director of Public Works
BID RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Village Board reject the bids received from Gambino Landscaping and KGI
Landscaping as non - responsive.
I also recommend award of a possible three year contract to the lowest qualified bidder, Milieu Design,
Inc. Year one would be in an amount not to exceed $110,675. Sufficient funds for this proposed
expenditure exist in the 2014 budget. Years two and three would be in whatever amount is appropriated
for this purpose in the 2015 and 2016 budgets.
I concur:
/ ..�'
andy Clark
SE AN°I'r. DORSEY
C:\ USERS \SDORSEY\APPDATA\ LOCAL\ MICROSOFT \WINDOWS \TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.OUTLOOK\NEJSK3XB\MEMO-
LMC BID RECOMMEND2 2014.DOC
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
9.
TREE CM USA
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: FORESTRY /GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2014
SUBJECT: BID RESULTS — TURF MOWING — $66,300.00
BACKGROUND
Sealed bids for turf mowing were opened on January 27, 2014. This contract is for the mowing
of publicly owned sites during the calendar years 2014 through 2016.
BID RESULTS
Twenty invitational bids were mailed and a notice was published in a local newspaper. Six bids
and one "no bid" letter were received. Bid results to mow 80 sites totaling an estimated
2,128,673 square feet are shown below.
Contractor
2014 Total
2014 -2016 Total Cost
Gambino Landscaping
$61,353.00
$184,059.00
Flecks Landscaping
$65,100.00
$195,300.00
Herrera Landscape, Inc.
$65,949.00
$203,698.80
Milieu Design Inc.
$66,013.80
$202,330.50
KGI Landscaping
$76,352.10
$229,056.30
Moore Landscapes, Inc.
$190,682.40
$590,844.30
Grounds Keeper
No Bid Letter
DISCUSSION
The bid totals above are based on an expected 30 weekly mowings per year, but we have the
ability to add or subtract mowing as determined by turf growth. We also have the ability to
remove sites from the contractor's assignment list if we wish.
The apparent low bidder was Gambino Landscaping, but Gambino failed to submit with their bid
the required 10% bid bond. For this reason, Gambino's bid must be considered to be non-
responsive.
The next lowest bidder, Fleck's Landscaping, submitted four satisfied references for municipal
or school district mowing contracts. In addition, Fleck's has mowed satisfactorily for us in the
past, taking over our mowing contract when they bought out Lundstrom's Nursery in the summer
Bid Results — Turf Mowing
February 12, 2014
Page 2 of 2
of 2012. The transition to the new company was extremely smooth, and Fleck's continued to
mow successfully for us until the contract ended last Fall.
BID RECOMMENDATION
Funds are available for this contract in the 2014 budget. I recommend award of a three year
mowing contract to the lowest qualified bidder, Fleck's Landscaping. Year one will be in an
amount not to exceed $66,300.00. Years two and three will be in whatever amount is approved
by the Village Board in the 2015 and 2016 budgets.
H: \Forestry \Grounds \Word\RFP or BID\2014\Memo -Turf Mow Bid - 2014.doc
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
LL $/ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2014
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTER INTERFACE BETWEEN HANSEN AND
LASERFICHE ($30,000)
Background
In recent years, the public works department has made a significant effort to develop effective
computerized management information systems. This effort has been a consequence of both an altruistic
intent to improve the management of Village assets as well as regulatory mandates, such as GASB 34
(Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 34), NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System) Phase II. and CMOM (Capacity, Management, Operations, Maintenance) which
require the adoption of specific professional asset management practices. These practices include asset
inventorying, performance measurement, and standardized reporting.
The Public Works Department management information system features three (3) primary software
platforms: Infor Public Sector (Hansen), ESRI geographic information system (GIS) and LaserFiche
document management system (LaserFiche). Hansen is used to manage asset attributes, record work
orders, perform condition assessment, and manage resident service requests. GIS is utilized as an
intuitive tool to manage the geospatial attributes of an asset (where it is), analyze data (thematic
mapping, scenario iterations, etc.) and display the geographic relationships of assets (replace the water
main the year before the street is resurfaced). LaserFiche is used to manage all of the departments
documents related to the work performed by Public Works. Documents include memos, letters to
residents, as- builts, plan reviews, etc. Currently Hansen and GIS have a robust bilateral relationship that
allows the systems to "share" information. Changes made to assets in GIS automatically update the
corresponding record in Hansen and vice versa. Presently a relationship between Hansen and LaserFice
does not exist; meaning the data in LaserFiche is not accessible in Hansen. We have been using Hansen
since 1995, GIS since 1999 and LaserFiche since the early 2000s.
Currently, we maintain an inventory of over 140,000 assets including (but not limited to) streets, parcels,
water mains, sewer mains, streetlights, parkway trees, booster stations, water meters, backflow
preventers, hydrants, manholes, valves, pavement markings, street signage, street furniture, and
sidewalks. Associated with each of these assets are a wide range of attribute data sets detailing assets
features, work order histories (currently over 830,000 work orders), service request histories (currently
over 80,000 service request) and condition assessments.
More recently staff has embraced the benefits of LaserFiche and has made the decision to exclusively
use LaserFiche as the department's file management system. Over the last year we were able to
eliminate the department's file room by scanning more than 200,000 documents into Laserfiche. As we
move forward all documents are scanned or imported directly into Laserfiche and are immediately
accessible by the entire department. Examples of files that have been scanned or imported into
LaserFiche include plats, as- builts, plan reviews, memos, letters, video, etc. The ability of personnel to
access files from any computer and location at with relative ease has created greater efficiencies.
Problem Statement
A large majority of the documents that reside in LaserFiche relate to information that is stored in Hansen.
Examples include a letter that a resident submits that needs to be associated with a service request or
Development of Computer Interface Between Hansen and LaserFiche ($30,000)
February 13, 2014
Page 2 of 2
original equipment manuals for an HVAC unit installed at Public Safety that needs to be associated with
the HVAC inventory in Hansen. LaserFiche also hosts original source documentation, such as a scanned
original as -built utility plan, that establishes ownership of a water main inventoried in Hansen.
Unfortunately, the two systems currently do not interact and personnel are required to perform multiple
searches in multiple applications to find related documentation. integrating the systems will allow users
to access crucial information in a more timely manner and will make information more accessible to the
user.
Discussion
Staff has asked Infor Global Solutions of New York, New York to propose a solution to this problem. Staff
believes Infor is uniquely positioned to suggest a fix because they not only develop the Hansen software,
but have also developed interfaces between Hansen and document management systems. Staff sought
proposals from several other vendors that have provided development services to the Village; however,
all firms declined to submit proposals sighting a lack of familiarity with Hansen and LaserFiche.
Infor has submitted a proposal to develop a bilateral interface that will enable documents associated in
Hansen to be accessible in LaserFice and documents in LaserFiche to be accessible in Hansen. In
essence, Hansen and LaserFiche would appear seamless to public works department end - users. The
proposed cost for this solution is $30,000. The proposed cost is in line with similar development work
completed for the Village by Infor.
The Village has previously worked with Infor to develop several interfaces the most recent being an
interface between Hansen and the Village's fuel system software. The interface was developed on time
and under budget. The interface has been used successfully the last three years with no issues and has
worked flawlessly with multiple versions of Hansen.
Hansen software has become an integral part of the way the Public Works Department operates. It has
proven to be extremely reliable and yet flexible tool for managing assess and delivering services. It has
become a fundamental component of the Public Works Department plans to improve the condition of
Village assets, enrich the quality of services, measure performance, and improve efficiency. It is the
opinion of staff the development of the interface between Hansen and LaserFiche will continue to
strengthen Hansen creating greater efficiencies and increasing the quality of services provided by the
Public Works Department.
This proposed purchase has been included in the Village's Computer Vision planning document and
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for several years. Additionally, it has been sanctioned by the Village
Technology Advisory Group (VTAG) and the Information Technology Division.
Recommendation
I recommend accepting the proposal from Infor Global Solutions of New York, New York to provide the
proposed interface between Hansen and LaserFiche at a cost not to exceed $30,000. Sufficient funds for
this proposed expenditure exist in the current budget
jJason H. Leib
I concur.
Sean P. Dorsey
Public Works Director
Cc: Sean P. Dorsey, Public Works Director
go1unt Prospect
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
m
'TREE CITY USA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
FROM: FORESTRY /GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2014
SUBJECT: BID RESULTS — CDBG PARKWAY TREE FURNISHING AND PLANTING -- $25,000
BACKGROUND
Bids were recently opened for the provision and installation of parkway trees using Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds. Bid prices were sought for a wide variety of 1 -1/2" diameter trees, to be planted in
neighborhoods that qualify for these funds. Trees planted on this project will replace ash trees removed due to EAB
and a few storm damage removals.
We also asked bidders to quote prices for "enhanced planting sites " -- larger pits with amended backfill- -which we
may order on a small number of trees being planted in very poor soil. Bid prices are good for Spring and Fall 2014
planting seasons only. Note that, because of the funding source, this bid requires the contractor to pay federal
prevailing wages as specified in the Davis -Bacon Act.
BID RESULTS
Eighteen invitational bids were mailed and a notice to bidders was published in a local newspaper. A mandatory pre -
bid conference was held for interested contractors on January 17, 2014. Sealed bids were opened on January 27,
2014. Two bids were received; both of these bidders had attended the mandatory pre -bid conference. Bid results are
attached. It should be noted that Huffman Landscape submitted the low bid price on 51 tree varieties while KGI
Landscaping submitted the low bid price on only 3 varieties.
DISCUSSION
Both bidders have successfully planted trees for us on many occasions in the past. At this time, we do not know the
exact quantity and species we will need to order for the project. However, the average bid cost per tree is roughly
$166.00; therefore, we expect approximately 150 trees will be planted on this project. Although the specifications
allow us to split this contract amongst various bidders, we do not need to plant the three varieties for which KGI
submitted the low price. Due to the various federal requirements that govern contracts using CDBG funds, it will be
far simpler for us to issue only one CDBG contract this year, to Huffman Landscape. We would restrict our order to
the 51 varieties for which Huffman submitted the low price.
BID RECOMMENDA
There is a total of $25,000.00 in the 2014 b � dget for this project. Therefore, I recommend awarding this contract to
Huffman Landscape. Total expenditures for all purchases will not exceed $25,000.00, and we will order only the 51
varieties for which Huffman Landscape sub itted the low price.
Sandy Clark
I concur: '
Sean P or�ey - Director of Public Works
H: \Forestry \WORD\2014\PLANT \Memo - CDBG Plant Recommend 2014.doc
Bid Results -- Parkway Tree CDBG Furnishing and Planting- January 27, 2014
Species
DBH
Bid Price
Avail. Qtv.
Bid Price
Avail. Q .
Green Mountain Sugar Maple
1.5"
Huffman Landscape
KGI Landsca in
Hedge Maple
Legacy Sugar Maple
1.5"
1.5"
Autumn Blaze, Marmo or Celebration Freeman Maple
Black Alder
1.5"
��$170.00
50
1.5"
$155 00 `:
100
Paperbark Maple
1.5"
kiikbb
50
$249.00
50
Miyabe Maple
1.5"
5165 00` v
100
Greencolumn Black Maple
1.5"
Crimson King Norway Maple
1.5" $184.00; 25
Emerald Queen or Emerald Luster Norway Maple
Columnar Norway Maple
1.5"
Globe Norway Maple
Green Mountain Sugar Maple
1.5"
$970 00:
100
Legacy Sugar Maple
1.5"
Black Alder
1.5"
��$170.00
50
Forest Prince or Autumn Brillance Serviceberry
1.5"
'Spring Flurry' Serviceberry
1.5"
American Hornbeam (Musclewood)
1.5"
$175.00 "
50
'Chicagoland', 'Windy City' or Common Hackberry
1.5"
„
$155 00
50
$250.00
50
Katsura Tree
1 5"
Eastern Redbud
1.5"
$27U :
50
Turkish Filbert
1.5'
'=
_$17&06 `:
30
"Golden Glory' dogwood (tree form)
1.5'
5.66"!!
50
$245.00
50
American Yellowwood'
1.5' ,
25
Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn
1.5"
Riversii Purple Beech
1.5"
Autumn Gold Ginkgo
1.5'
$1 J0 00 ;`'
30
$295.00
20
Princeton Sentry Ginkgo
1.5'
$190.0b ° -`
30
$290.00
100
Skyline, Shademaster or Sunburst Honeylocust
1.5'$145.00
100
Kentucky Coffeetree
1.5'
$16500 `i
100
$274.00
20
JC McDaniels or Espresso Kentucky Coffeetree
1.5'
$175.00' = -
50
$220.00
50
Tuliptree
1.5'
„$'165 00 '.
100
Summertime' Amur Maackia
1.5
$f85.00
20
Sentinel Crabapple
1.5"
White Angel, Donald Wyman, or Ormiston Roy
1.5
$1.35 00
30
$184.00
20
Jackii Crabapple
1.5"
Adams Crabapple
'Cardinal' Crabapple
1.5
'13
30
'Firebird' Crabapple
1.5 "
30
$199.00
50
Prairifire Crabapple
1.5"
� ',
${7UO3
10
Purple Prince Crabapple
Harvest Gold Crabapple
Royal Raindrops Crabapple
Sugar Tyme Crabapple
i
H:\ Forestry\EXCEL \2014 \PLANT\BID -RESUL t - SHEE I - uubu nignugncs smau unry.xisx
Bid Results -- Parkway Tree CDBG Furnishing and Planting- January 27, 2014
Species
DBH
Bid Price
Avail. Q
Bid Price I
Avail. Ci
Huffman Landscape
KGI Landscapin
Dawn Redwood
1.5"
$176.00
30
Blackgum
1.5"
$200 00 '" -'
50
Ironwood (Hophornbeam)
1.5"
$195 00 `-
50
Persian Ironwood 'Vanessa'
1.5"
Macho Amur Corktree
Bloodgood, Ovation or Exclamation London Planetree
1.5"
$165.00
100
$220.00
100
Schubert Chokecherry (tree form)°
1.5"
$145 00 .
100
$160.00
20
Bradford or Autumn Blaze Callery Pear
1.5"
616500' "=
30
$220.00
30
Redspire Callery Pear
✓
10
Chanticleer or Cleveland Select Callery Pear
�
1.5"
30
Sawtooth Oak
White Oak
1.5"
'
$200"00
100
$210.00
100
Northern Red Oaks
15"
70.00
100
Shingle Oak`
1.5"
$170 00 .i
50
Bur Oak
1.5"
$190 00 -'
50
Chinkapin Oak
1.5"
$180.00
50
English Oak
1.5"
Heritage 'Clemons' Oak
1.5"
Regal Prince'Long' Oak
1.5"
$1$000 :,
100
$220.00
100
Bur /Swamp White Oak Hybrid
1.5'
$180. 00, .i
20
$220.00
25
Chicago Blues' Black Locust
1.5"
Common Sassafras
1.5"
Ivory Silk Tree Lilac
1.5'
`
. $165.00." * =
100
China Snow or Summer Charm Tree Lilac
- a
1.5'
$165 00 .'a
100
Bald Cypress
1.5'
$16500
50
Greenspire or Glenleven Littleleaf Linden
1.5"
Summer Sprite Linden
1.5"
Redmond Linden
1.5"
70
Sterling Silver Linden
50
Douglas' or'American Sentry' American Linden
1.5'$1
u5 00:`.'
50
Accolade American Elm
1.5'
$155 00
50
Triumph American Elm
1.5
50
'Valley Forge' American Elm
'r
50
Homestead Elm
Princeton' American Elm
1.5"
100
Frontier Elm
1.5'
$165.00:
25
$174.00
25
Lacebark Elm
Commendation Elm
1.5"
Patriot Elm
1.5'
�.
30
Danada Charm Elm
'Regal' Elm
1.5"
Additional Cost Per Tree for Enhanced Planting
Sites
1 -1 /2" tree
$30 00
$40.00
H:\ Forestry\ EXCEL \2014 \PLANT\BID - RESULT - SHEET -CDBG- highlights small only.xlsx