Laserfiche WebLink
W A "I E R F N F fir, G Y E P u z <br />RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES <br />i iiww P <br />& boar Mem• i <br />BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES DATE: January 17,, 2014 <br />ITEM NO: 4 <br />SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WORK ORDER NO. 1411791 AND AWARD OF PURCHASE ORDER <br />FOR A MOBILE DC BATTERY SYSTEM <br />ISSUE: <br />The items for Board of Public Utilities consideration are: 1) approval of Work Order No. 1411791; and 2) <br />award of a purchase order for a mobile DC battery system. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />That the Board of Public Utilities: <br />1. Approve Work Order No. 1411791 in the amount of $171,969; and <br />2. Approve a Purchase Order in the amount of $116,390.52 to Hindle Power Inc., of Easton, <br />Pennsylvania, for a mobile DC Battery system. <br />BACKGROUND: <br />Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) has a need for a new substation battery trailer to replace the existing <br />equipment that has reached end of life. Batteries play a critical role as an emergency substation power <br />source to operate protective equipment. The battery trailer is used in emergencies to maintain or restore <br />electric system continuity. <br />The existing trailer and batteries are in poor condition and need to be replaced. NERC (North American <br />Electric Reliability Corporation) and WECC (Western Electricity Coordinating Council) standards require <br />maintenance of batteries and ancillary equipment. If these standards (PRC 005 — PRC 008) are not met, <br />system reliability could be adversely affected and significant fines could be imposed. <br />The purchase of this equipment is covered under Section 602 of the Purchasing Resolution No. 22576. <br />Section 602 specifies batteries as one type of specialized equipment which is peculiar to the needs of the <br />City's Public Utilities department and provides for acquisition by Open Market Procurement if it appears to the <br />Purchasing Services Manager to be in the best interest of the City. The Purchasing Services Manager made <br />such a determination in this case and therefore staff solicited proposals from four specialized manufacturers <br />in lieu of the formal bidding process. <br />Proposals containing exceptions to the specification terms and conditions were considered non - responsive. <br />Hindle Power Inc. of Easton, Pennsylvania offered the lowest responsive proposal. <br />......_.... <br />_..� �. <br />. ....... <br />Pro p nt <br />Proposal Amount <br />Vendors <br />Location <br />Including Sales Tax: <br />Rank <br />1. Hindle Power Inc. <br />Easton, PA <br />$116,390.52 <br />1 <br />2. Facility Shield International Inc. <br />Moreno Valley, CA <br />$130,357.38 <br />2 <br />3. SBS Battery Systems LLC <br />_ . % _. <br />Menomonee Falls, WI <br />� � <br />.... __. no-proposal <br />Non - responsive <br />4. Pacific Utilities <br />Concord, CA <br />no-proposal <br />Non -res Non-responsive <br />p __. . <br />➢ Engineer's Estimate <br />$120,000.00 <br />