Minutes - 1961/06/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2 r June 26th 1961 meeting continued- 00007? 3. The Turbomatic Co. has not built a unit of this nature. Conger. quently they have no service record of the performance of this unit which they propose. 4. In water treatment and sanitary sewer plant engineering, it is not uncommon to investigate the poeeibility of the use of egip- ment other than that which is originally proposed+ However, in a oircumetance of this nature there id generally a pilot plant history to be relied upon in considering the performance of a new unit. in the case of the Turbomatic proposal there is no pilot plant data available, as no pilot plant has ever been con structed or tested to our knowledge. 5. There have been instances where untested equipment has been installed in a sewage treatment plant. In one case the munici- pality was allowed to operate tha equipment for a period of three years before payment was required. This permitted the accumula- tion of a sufficient operational history to determine the satis- factory operation of the unit. Another inatanbQ was an arrangement whereby a guarantee was pro- vided the municipality for a type of equipment which was leas expensive than that originally proposed: This equipment was not considered to be equal to the originally proposed item and after a period of attempted operation for two years, it was dis- covered that the bid item did not perform the job intended. After the two year period the equipment was removed. In this instance the municipality never did obtain the originally pro- posed equipment and the operation of the then substituted equip- ment was more costly than the municipality Mould have paid for the operation of the originally specified equipment. The equipment on the second bid by the Layne Minnesota Co. has had a successful operational history over a period in excess of 10 years. One feature of the unit that is more favorable is that it can be back washed with raw water while the unit is in service. The sum of ;24,250 difference in the low bid of the Turbomatic Co. and the second bid of the Layne Minnesota Co. is extremely attractive however, we cannot concientiously advise the village to accept the lo bid in view of the fact that there is no similar unit in operation no any pilot plant data. Recently, t:-is bid differential has occurred in four previous instances. In each case a different engineering fir firm was involved. The recommendation of the engineering firm in each case was that the Turbomatic bid should not be considered for numerous stated .reasons. Therefore, we believe that our statement cannot be altered favoring the low bid.