1989-0862651L-3/3689
NO -OQo
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE
AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS, PROVIDING
FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City has solicited received and tabulated
competitive bids for the construction of public works or
improvements in accordance with the procedures of state law and
City ordinances, and
WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has
received and recommended that the herein described bids are the
lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works
or improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals
and plans and specifications therefore, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS
SECTION I That the following competitive bids for the
construct ono public works or improvements, as described in the
"Bid Invitations', "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on
file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according
to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and
approved as being the lowest responsible bids
BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT
9975 LABORATORY EXPANSION, INTERIOR $ 52,595 00
SECTION II That the acceptance and approval of the above
compet t ve s shall not constitute a contract between the City
and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public
works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such
person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice
to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract
and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, after notifi-
cation of the award of the bid
SECTION III That the City Manager is hereby authorized to
execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of
the construction of the public works or improvements in
accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided
that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to
Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto
specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications,
standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein
SECTION IV That upon acceptance and approval of the above
compet t ve s and the execution of contracts for the public
works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council
hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in
the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized
contracts executed pursuant thereto
SECTION V That this ordinance shall become effective
imme ate y upon its passage and approval
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of
1989
14 W'A~
ATTEST
*J4 R , ET Y
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
PAGE 2
DA'in JULY 11, 1989
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM Lloyd V Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECT BID #9975 LABORATORY EXPANSION, INTERIOR
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest evaluated bidder
meeting specification, Max Grigsby Co in the amount of $52,595 00
including basebid and alternate #2
SUMMARY
This bid is for the purchase of Laboratory Furniture and fixtures
including work stations and storage facilities These items are
the second phase of the Municipal Laboratory expansion project
The lower price offered by American Seating fails to meet
specification and would require a change in the floor plan of the
building under construction An extensive evaluation was done by
the using department and the architect The results of which is
included in attached memorandums This evaluation is the basis for
our recommendation
BACKGROUND
Tabulation Sheet
Memorandum from Howard Martin to John Marshall
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT
Municipal Laboratory
FISCAL IMPACT
1988/89 C I P funds for Water Production 25% 624-008-0480-9101 and
75% Waste Water Treatment 623-008-0480-9101
Respectful submitted
repared by
Name Tom D Shaw, C P M
Title Assistant Purchasing, Agent
Title
Approved
Name
Title
Lloyd Ha e11
city manager
012 DOC
r
(D
M
w
rt
fD
W
N
0
r
w
M
M
m
0
M
ov
N
1'r
rt
r
0
N
a
a
A
a
H
h
Ul
r
K
M
a
rt
tD
M
r
b7
r
w
n
0
0
a
a
~r
co
n
0
N
"n
n
O
0
b
`3 O
H
to
H
e
ro
t+7 C~]
N H
9
o m
~ o
z
r
r ~
w z
~ O
00
z
w
-
~
n
w
w
H
'P.
t7i
O 'vC
G)
O~
N
p
W
.`d
O
H
En
W
H
p
ON
01
d'
H H
~
o
CD
O
o
x
Uj
0
0
0
0
`
(D
H H
(
M
CT1
to
H 7 H
9
H
O
O
in
H
in
0
y H :4
n
p
0
o
0
°
o
o
n
ro
~:,O
n
H
Ln
?
H H
OD
En
w
rn
O
z
n
G) z
C)
Ln
0
o
tzj
o
0
n
- - -
- - - -
- - -
- -
- -
- - -
- - - -
- - -
H ~ to
0,
z a
rn
w
o
z
LO
F~
N
v
>x>n
H
O
O
H
W
p
P
p
~zr
m
p
p
O
p
H lT1
0
0
°
o
z m
H L)
r
CITY of DENTON
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: John Marshall, Purchasing Agent
DENTON# TEXAS 76201
FROM: Howard Martin, Environmental Services Administrator
DATE: 6/12/89
SUBJECT: Laboratory Casework Bid 119975
The Division has completed the review of the bids for the
laboratory expansion casework Based on the casework details
provided by the prospective project bidders and inspection of
their casework installation, I am recommending selection of
Hamilton Industries casework as bid by Max Grigsby Co , Inc
Although the Fisher laboratory casework is the casework of
choice, it is difficult to justify the higher cost when
products were compared on the basis of utility The primary
difference that sets the Fisher casework apart from the other
suppliers is the greater availability of color schemes for the
cabinet units and the countertops This being the situation,
the casework of the other two bidders was evaluated and the
recommendation to utilize the Hamilton casework is based on
the followings
1 Load Capacity of Casework
The proposed laboratory design utilizes a combination of
cantilevered work surfaces as well as floor mounted work
surfaces. The primary difference between the American Seating
and the Hamilton casework is that American Seating utilizes
cantilevered casework construction extensively as opposed to
floor mount casework construction. American Seating proposes
that approximately 69 R of the casework construction is
cantilever type and 31 % is floor mount construction Hamilton
utilizes approximately 87 / floor mount and only 13 /
cantilever type construction. Floor mounted casework is
preferable in our application because of the ability of the
casework to support approximately 600 lbs per base unit as
opposed to 200 lbs per pair of cantilever supports
EXHIBI12.
p 2
In casework applications where both manufacturers proposed
cantilever type construction, the Hamilton furniture is rated
at 400 lbs per pair of cantilever supports as opposed
American Seating s 200 lbs per pair of cantilever supports
It should be pointed out that both manufacturers claim
functional load capacity increases when using epoxy resin work
surfaces Actual load capacity must be determined through
evaluation of the like support means but the basic support
capability differences would remain
in casework application where both manufacturers propose floor
mounted casework construction, load-bearing capacities are
roughly equal
2 Casework Configuration
Both American Seating and Hamilton were able to supply
casework configurations that would satisfy the proposed
casework utility The difference between the two proposals is
that the American Seating casework would require minor
modification of the proposed laboratorydesnumber utilize net
their product In addition, the typ of cabi
units would have to be modified to accomodate their casework.
Accomodation of the American Seating casework would require
the following changesi
a The installation of wall cabinets with flipper doors in
the place of wall units with sliding glass front doors and
adjustable shelves The primary problem with flipper door
cabinets in this installation is the 15 inch height
limitation Many pieces of glassware exceed 15 inches in
height, examples include graduated cylinders (1000 ml
volumetric flask (2,000ml long stem glass funnels,
distillation condensers and burets. These pieces of
glassware would have to be stored in another location In
addition, a double row of flipper door cabinets would be
necessary to equal the storage capacitof the propose the
Hamilton wall cabinets. Because flipper open
top, the opening and closing of the doors on the top row of
flipper door cabinets exceeds the height that a normal
employee is able to reach without the benefit of step ladder
or stool The American Seating representative did say that
they could supply wall cabinets in the place of flipper door
cabinets but no information was received on these units during
the review period so the bid proposal was reviewed as
originally proposed
b The configuration of the base cabinet units would require
modification of the proposed design Deviation from the
original floorplan is most noticable in the open wet chemistry
area The American Seating proposal does not
p 3
accomodate turn tables (Lazy Susan) in the corner cabinet
units and substitutes a regular base unit which mounts
diagonally. This in turn reduces the proposed base units
against the west wall by eliminating a base unit, some
flexibility in the proposed drawers/cabinet storage
the
configuration is reduced. Additionally, by utilizing cabinet configuration required to accomodate the proposed
dishwasher, a base unit housing a set of drawers is
eliminated
c The proposed casework for the center island work stations
incorporates an end sink in the design. The American Seating
sink unit is a smaller unit with less countertop area than
that proposed in the original design The American Seating
representative indicated that he could provide the same width
sink and countertop area but that it would have to be done
with two base units instead of one (as designed) The problem
with this configuration is that the sink could no longer be
positioned in the center of the island end
Included in the design are several small items that were not
addressed by American Seating The laboratory design included
dust covers over all wall mounted cabinets There was no
indication in the bid proposal that American Seating could
supply these dust covers. In the GC and carbon room there is
a countertop overhang on the east wall that was not included
in the American Seating drawing
The Hamilton bid proposal can supply exactly what was designed
with no modifications to casework configuration. Hamilton can
provide the number, type and size of casework specified in the
proposed design.
3 Fume Hood Criteria
In attempting to evaluate the characteristics of laboratory
fume hoods available from Hamilton Industries and American
Seating Company, several important differences became
apparent. The Hamilton hoods are manufactured by Hamilton
Industries whereas the hoods offered by American Seating are
manufactured by Air Master Systems Corporation. We were able
to inspect Hamilton fume hoods operating at Environmental
Processing Incorporated in Dallas and a JC Penney, Inc.
quality assurance lab in Carrollton. Monitor/alarm
sensitivity was exhibited at EPI when a correctable air-flow
imbalance activated the Hamilton system The Hamilton
Monitor/Alarm System is designed and specified to 'signal
conditions when fume hood average face velocity and exhaust
volume drops 70 of that specified, " whereas the alarm
system in the Air Master Systems (American Seating) fume hood
p.4
is specified to activate when "there is a pressure drop or
something."
An obvious problem associated with comparing the operation of
hoods offered by Hamilton and American Seating is a lack of
standardization of specifications Hamilton Industries
provides extensive specs including face velocity (sec 11.9.9)
and hood static pressure (sec 11.4 12) test procedures which
closely reflect those recommended by the American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ( A Manual of
Recoomended Practice , 18th Edition, 1984) Hamilton s test
results of the polyresin hood liner material indicates a
flexure strength of 20,OVO psi with a flame spread of 15 or
less per 723/ASTM E84 Hamilton results of chemical spills and
fume tests indicate resistance of the fume hood liner material
to 49 reagents including but not limited to concentrated
acids Hamilton Industries also specifies minimum average
interior illumination of 80 foot candles American Seating
Company does not provide specifications from Air Master
Systems addressing fume hood liner material strength and
chemical resistance.
4 Epoxy Resin Tops
Both American Seating and Hamilton utilized similar testing
procedures for chemical resistance profiles of the epoxy resin
work surface The Hamilton work surface was tested against 50
different chemicals solutions where American Seating work
surface was tested against 38 chemicals While both resin
work surfaces performed adequately in these test, it is noted
that all the solutions tested on the Hamilton epoxy resin work
surface received a "good" or better rating where the American
Seating resin received a "poor" rating on phenol solution and
95/ sulfuric acid solution. The information supplied with the
American Seating was vague and did not categorize different
ratings as adequately as the Hamilton testing information.
This made evaluation of the work surface very difficult
5. Existing Casework Installations
In evaluating existing installations, we found that most of
the American Seating installations were medical and industrial
types of installations I received only four references for
chemical testing laboratory installations and the only
reference in the State of Texas was Kelly Air Force Base in
San Antonio I visited Kelly and talked with the employees
working in the laboratory with the American Seating casework
installation (the installation was approximately 1.5 years
old) Their overall evaluation of the American Seating
casework was "fair" They indicated that it was adequate for
their operation. Some of the problems that they had with the
casework were three or four incidents of broken spot welds on
p 5
drawer runners, a large 4 foot sliding drawer continued to
malfunction, there was limitation on glassware height in
flipper door cabinets and there were some problems with wrong
casework components being shipped during installation They
did say that American Seating had worked with them to correct
these problems as they occurred
Hamilton had many references for chemical testing laboratories
and submitted a list of three located in Dallas , I visited
two more in San Antonio. Everyone seemed to be satisfied with
the Hamilton installations, even in the older installation.
SUMMARY
In summary, the Division is recommending acceptance of
Hamilton casework as bid by Max Grigsby Co., Inc. based upon
the evaluation indicated above We feel that the American
Seating bid would require a compromise on floor plan design to
accomodate the proposed casework Hamilton casework is widely
used in chemical testing laboratories and we anticipate that
it would provide long term utility for our operation
FILE.LASSID
PT-DISH C
Fq-o8(V
CONTRACT AGREEMENT
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DENTON ) (
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 14 day of JULY _
A.D., 19 89, by and between THE CITY OF DENTON
of the County of DENTON and State of Texas, acting through LLOYD V.
HARRELL, CITY MANAGER thereunto duly authorized so to do,
Party of the First Part, hereinafter termed the OWNER, and MAX GRIGSBY
COMPANY,': INC., 14114 NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY, DALLAS, TX 75240
of the City of DALLAS , County of DALLAS
and state of TEXAS Party of the Second Part, hereinafter
termed CONTRACTOR.
WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the payments and
agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by the Party of the
First part (OWNER), and under the conditions expressed in the bonds bearing
even date herewith, the said Party of the Second Part (CONTRACTOR) hereby
agrees with the said Party of the First Part (OWNER) to commence and complete
the construction of certain improvements described as follows:
BID#9975 - LABORATORY EXPANSION EQUIPMENT 6 BASE BID
PLUS ALTERNATE 2 - $52,595.00 O, q L Z
and all extra work in connection therewith, under the terms as stated in the
General Conditions of the agreement; and at his (or their) own proper cost and
expense to furnish all materials, supplies, machinery, equipment, tools,
superintendence, labor, insurance, and other accessories and services
necessary to complete the said construction, in accordance with the conditions
and prices stated in the Proposal attached hereto, and in accordance with all
the General Conditions of the Agreement, the Special Conditions, the Notice to
Bidders (Advertisement for Bids), Instructions to Bidders, and the Performance
and Payment Bonds, all attached hereto, and in accordance with the plans,
which includes all maps, plats, blueprints, and other drawings and printed or
CA-1
0044b
written: explanatory matter thereof, and the Specifications therefore, as
prepared by THF. R FTT T i AT. COLLECTIVE, TN D NTON T A
, all of "which are made a part hereof and collectively evidence and
constitute the entire contract.
The CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to commence work on or after the date
established for the start of work as set forth in written notice to commence
work and complete all work within the time stated in the Proposal, subject to
such extensions of time as are provided by the General and Special Conditions.
The OWNER agrees to pay the CONTRACTOR in current funds the price or
prices shown in the Proposal, which forms a part of this contract, such
payments to be subject to the General and Special Conditions of the Contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties of these presents have executed this
agreement in the year and day first above written.
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY OF DENTON,
'arty of e, First,
LLOYD V. HARRELL,
CITY,~MANAGER.- r;_
c j# ~r
(SEAL)
MAX GRIGSBY CO.,
INC
Party of the Second Part, CONTRACTOR
By
MAX GRIGSBY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorn
CA-2
(SEAL)
0044b
ISSUE DATE
NORTH AMERICAN INS AGCY
14825 ST MARY'S LN #100
HOUSTON TX 77079-2904
CODE BUD-CODE
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ON LY AND CONFERS
NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND,
EXTEND OR A LTER TH E COV ERAG E AFFOR OED BY TH E POLICI ES B ELOW
I COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
COMPANY A
LETTER
COMPANY B
INSURED LETTER
MAX GRIGSBY COMPANY, INC COMPANY C
AND/OR MAX GRIGSBY, IND. LETTER
P.O. BOX 198091 COMPANY D
HOUSTON, TX 77224 LETTER
COMPANY
E
LETTER
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSUR ED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY AEOUIR EM ENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
TYPE OF INSURANCE
DAL LIABILDY
S
AUTO
NNED AUTOS
EDULED AUTOS
:D AUTOS
-OWNED AUTOS
AGE LIABILITY
SS LIABILITY
UMBRELLA
ITH ER THAN U M BR ELLA FORM
POLICYNUMBER I DATE (MM/DDnY DATE (MM/DO/)
0709591 12/01/88 12/01/89
CA0709592 112/01/88112/01/89
0709594 112/01/88112/0
ALL LIMITS IN THOUSANDS
PRODUCTS-COMP/OPSAGGR f 1 U U U
PERSONAL&ADVERTISING NJUR E 500
EACH OCCURRENCE E 500
FIRE DAMAGE(Any me fire) E 5n
E
f
f
E
EACH AGGREGATE
60GffRO E 5,000
STATUTORY
AND
EMPLOYED S' LIABILITY
oT"- INSTALLATION
FLOATER
1$ 1 500 (DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT(
E 500 (DISEASE-EACH
ICL734430 12/01/88 12/01/89 $750,000 PER
ICL734430 12/01/88 12/01/89 JOB SITE
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/RESTRICTIONS/SPECIAL ITEMS
REF: MGC JOB #53065
CITY OF DENTON HAS BEEN ADDED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE GENERAL LIABILIT)l
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
PURCHASING AGENT
901-B TEXAS STREET
DENTON, TX 76201
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO
MAIL _3D- DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE
LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR
LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES.
FORM OF PROPOSAL
DATE: . APRIL 13, 1989
PROJECT: (Bid #9975)
DENTON MUNICIPAL LABORATORY
LABORATORY EXPANSION
EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION
1100 Mayhill Road, Denton, Texas
PROPOSAL OF: MAX GRIGSBY COMPANY, INC.
(hereinafter called "Bidder")
a corporation,
a partnership,
an individual doing business as
TO:-- JOHN MARSHALL, CHIEF PURCHASING AGENT
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
901-B TEXAS STREET
DENTON, TEXAS 76201
The Bidder in compliance with your. Advertisement for Bids
for the above referenced project, and having become
thoroughly familiar with the terms and cdb3itions of the
proposed Contract Documents and with local conditions
affecting the performance and cost of the Work -at the place
where the Work is to be completed and having fully. inspected
the site in all particulars, hereby proposes and agrees to
fully perform the Work within 140 calendar days from the
Notice To Proceed, and in strict accordance with ._the
proposed Contract Documents, for the following sum of money:
BASE BID:
All labor, materials, services and equipment necessary for
completion of the Work shown on the Drawings and in the.
Specifications,FORTY FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR Dollars
$44,364.00 )
Amount to be shown in both words and figures.
ALTERNATES:
No. 1 - (Add) (96aUU&') ONE THOUSAND SIX DOLLARS ONLY Dollars
$1.006.00 ) -
No. 2 - (Add) (94 @I)EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED THIRTY ONIPollars
$8,231.00
-1-
F.
COMMENCEMENT OF WORK:
The Bidder further proposes and agrees to commence work under
this Contract within ten (10) days after the date established
in a written "Notice to Proceed" and to fully complete all work
thereunder as set forth in the Form of Proposal.
ADDENDA:.
The Bidder further agrees, and acknowledges that the following
Addenda have been received and that the entire thereof have been
incorporated into this Proposal:
No. one, dated APRIL 6, 1989
No. Two, dated
No. Three, dated
Submitted by:
(Legal Signatur
MAX GRIGSBY CO.. INC.
(Firm)
14114 North Dallas Pkwy #330 Dallas 75240
(Address)
(214) 458-2131
(Phone Number)
Seal
.Y~ +