Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence jam. W'✓., BECK AND AssocIATEs ENGINEERS ANC C1GiSC �9yTS ��/ r, 1 ERANNINC Y..... ice: DESIGN GENERAL OFFICE RATES - TOWERBUILDING .,. _ - ANALYSES SEATTLE,W4SHINGTON 9B101 .,..' 00 EVALUATIONS 206422-S0 -- �,.� ''�.'• - _ �,� , �tl MANAGE.WIEM'f ...-- EIL.ENO. w1A7-1415-ES1-MA 1979 3024 P: - --- Mr. A. Milton Seymour, Manager Truckee-Donner Public Utility District Post Office Box 309 Truckee, California. 95734 Dear Milt: Subject: Contract No. 1 Power Transformers ----- and Circuit Switches In response to your letter of March 22, 1.979, we have re- viewed the two proposals received on March 19, 1979 for the power trans- formers and the circuit switcher. Since only one bid was received for each bid Item we have reviewed the bids only on the basis of the excep-- tIons taken to determine if the bids were responsive to the specif.i.- cat_tons. Bid Schedule A - 'tower Transformers General Electric. Supply Company, the sole bidder, quoted a firm price through October 1979, with no print approval and an escala- tion factor of 0. 75% per month thereafter,. General Electric has also :included a. cost adjustment for the transformer oi.l based on the differ-- once between the oll cost to General Llectric and 60 cents/gallon. Technical. exceptions taken by the bidder pertain to the transformer oil. azzd the paint color in the Interior Of the control cabinet. It would appear that the district could waive these exceptions. It is our opinion that oil supplied by the General Electric Company must comply with acceptable :industry standards which Is the intent of the Contract Documents. The painting of the Inte.rior of the cabinet is a preference item and. does not affect performance. Shipment Is estimated at 27 weeks which places the delivery outside of the spec.ifi.ed delivery dates of July 1.5 to August 15, 1.979. The 27 weeks delivery is also contingent on no drawing approvals. General Electric also took exception to the Contract Document require- ments that if standard drawings are used, portions which apply to the equipment shall be endorsed. Under the circumstances it would appear that the District could waive these exceptions. It would ,appear that the proposed 27 weeks delivery may still._ provide the D3,.str3-ct with sufficient time to get the transformer in service for the 1979 - 1980 winter peak • t�,l Mr. A. Milton Seymour ---2- March 30, J_979 provided that esser.tiall.y all other werk was completed prior to receipt of the transformers. We see your attorney has already commented on the exceptions taken on the non-technical items. It appears to us that the special warranty quoted by the bidder essentially conforms to the Contract Docu-- m.ent.s. The special warranty covers the cost of removing, transporting and reins traIling the c:�qulpment and is an extension of their_ standard warranty. The exception to the Contract Documents is that the cost of the removal, reins t:-a.liaLion and transportation is limited to 50% of the equipment: cost. As we :interpret. the G.E. proposal, delivery is quoted FOB common. carrier poi.nL nearest destination. You may wish to have your attorney review these two latter points for clarification. Assuming that the technical and non-technical exceptions can be waived by the :Dlstr.i.ct, we recommend that the !District award Bid Schedule A for four (`f) power transformers to the General Electric Supply Company in the amount of $1.93,250.00. We further recommend that the District purchase the spare parts as quoted in the amount of $1,439. Bid Schedule_D _ Clrcult S•witcher S & C Electric Company submitted the only bid on the circuit switcher. The price quoted is firm if shipped within 180 days from date of order. Technical exceptions taken by S & C included the item that pushbuttons will be provided in place of a control -witch and will be 1.)cat.ed externally and conduit and wires for interconnecting the three shunt trip devices on the switch will not be provided. It will be necessary for the installation contractor to provide-. the required con- duit axid wire. It would appear that the District could waive these exceptions. S & C also submitted two alternate bids, one bid on a manual closing shunt trip c__rcuit switches with disconnect and the second bid on a circuit switcher without disconnect. These switches are not in compliance. with the specifications and we do not -recommend their appli- cation to your proposed substation. S & C took exception to Special Observation and Witness of Testing. It would appear that this exception could be waived by the District since this unit Is a standard product of this Company and such inspections would riot: be required under normal circumstances. Exceptions .are taken by S & C on Warranty, Indemnity, Lia- bility and "Conditiori of Sales" which your attorney has already commented On. �bq Mr. A. Ms.y_ton Seymour -2- March 30, .1979 Assuming, that the technical and non-technical exceptions can be waived by the District we recommend that the District award Bid. Schedule r. for one. (1) circuit switr_.her to the S & C Electric Company in the amount: of $25,944.29. Per the request in the District's letter of March 22, 1979 we are retu.rning herewith the bid documents for the above bid: . (General Electric cite book. and S & C Electric two books) If you have .any questions to .regard to the above, please contact us accordingly. Very truly yours, R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES Kenneth P. r rriman Partner KPM/sjn eucl.osure: - 4i u, COPIE R & I Lt /-a 14��- AVIORNLItS A I LAW 907 TAHOE 13(.1111EVARI). SUITF 12 j� POSA FF14:-f I)RA%Y,,FR BY IN( I INF NEVADA W.Y.'i'M ('RWNIEP, March 20, 1979 ARFA CUUF 702 ­RNIA A(4 A[If N I V1J)A1 ITLF-PHONF.'AM 1174— MARK PF0'IFrQIJAUFR F1 V Ai JH IRN11, If VAI-A) Mr. Junies A. MaqF.,,, President Truckee-Donner PlAblic Utility District Post Office Box 309 Truckee, Calif'orriiu 95734 R e: Bids Of S & C Electric Company mid General Electric Supply Company on Conti-act No. I -- Power Transformers, Voltage R(-,�gula,tors and Reclosures Dear Jim: Pursuarst to the direr' ionof the Board at its meeting of March 19, 1979, this office has reviewed the bids of S & C Electric Company and General Electric Supply Company. & C' Electric (:oryjvfaf The paragraph nuinbers I-efes, to ti-Knse contained in the March 13, 1.979, letter from S & C Electric C'Ornpany, beginning on page six. 1. Paragraph 2 states a firm price if shipped within 180 days from date of order. Since they quote a 1.7 week shipment date, they should guarantee a firm price. 2. Paragraph 6 sets forth a two-year warranty which is better than the one--year warranty silt foth in the Contract Documents. However, it is not BIUCh Of a warranty and would more properly be called a disclaimer. For example, shouir.] S & C Electric deliver defective equipment which caused dam89E- to equipment owned by the District, S & C Electric would not be liable. Also, they claim no responsibility for components contained irk the Products which are not manufactured by S & C Electric. 3. Paragraph 7 refers to indemnity and insurance. I would think the indemnity paragraph applies and the others do riot. 4. "Conditions-0-f Sale". The first sentence in this paragraph is totally inconsistent w tickling"-cjji-ng procedure. Contracts are generally construed according to the laws of the state where the contract is made. By requiring "accf-ptaric e" of an "order" in Illinois, the contract will be "made" in Illinois and governed by the laws of Illinois and not California. It' GRUMER & PFJ'['ENHAI'ER, L'ra A'a•TORNEYS AT' LAW normal bidding procedures were followed, the bid would be accepted in California and the contract would be construed according to the :Laws of California. 5. The letter state.; that orders are subject to the "Standard Conditions of Sale' attached to the letter. Under the Standard Conditions, risk of ~` loss passes to the District once S & ,r Electric has delivered the equipment to a. common carrier in Illinois. I think they should be responsible for loss until it is delivered to Truckee as stated in paragraphs 206.08 b and c of Contract No.. I. The Standard Conditions provide that the laws of Illinois govern the construction of tive contract. I would suggest the District require that the laif,7s of C:elifornia control. The provisions of the last few paragraphs of the Standard Conditions are difficult to understand. If equipment is returned because of a defect, the District will pay .nothing for such equipment. General E'lect:ri:c Su ly Coin ara For your rc:f(Terace I will be referring to paragraph numbers contained in the letter of March 14, 1.979, from General Electric. I. The "special warranty coverage" mentioned in paragraph 2 is in reality aai disclaimer of liability and radar to the District. For example, if General Electric d+:.livers a defective product to the District, the District must fray all costs of dismantling, transportation to and from Georgia, and all reinstallation.. Also, they only warrant up to 50% of the purchase price. The District cannot agree to pay 50% of the purchase price in the went the product turns out to be so defective that it is worthless scrap m etal. 2.. Paragraph 3 states the price is .firm through October, 1979. If they are referring to a shipment (late, perhaps they should guarantee their shipment estimate of 27 weeks. 3. Paragraph 5 refers to the attached "Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale". Under "Price Adjustment Policy" it is stated that final billing will be, adjusted snider the terms of Price Adjustment Clause 6C of the Handbook. I do not find that clause attached. Paragraph 5 :states the price includes FOB common carrier point nearest destination and the Standard Terms provide FOB Rome, Georgia. I think this should be clar•if.;ed. The Standard Terms state that risk of loss and title both pass at the point of shipment. This should be changed to point of destination as required by paragraphs 206.08 1.) and c of Contract No. 1. GRUMER & P -0-FENI ALTER, L•t•D, A 7TORNIF•YS AT LAV' The Standard Tee-nks further provide that the laws of New York govern. I fail to see What New York has to do with products manufactured in Georgia for delivery to California,, and I would suggest that California law control. 4. .Paragraph 6 tar.kws exception to tt►e warranty and I have made comments rega.rdiing that subject above. In cA�nclti;ion, it would appear that both companies are claiming their equipinent is good while at the lama time refusing to support that clairn. Very truly yours, GRUMER & .P1FOI'1NHA.UER, LTD. By :i'I FNIEN E. GRUMER SE:C:,:fn e:a cc: All Directors Aa. Milton Seywour Susan Craig R. W. Becek and Associates