Purchase matrix for M.D.

Posted on January 24, 2019 by Vauxhall Advance

By Cole Parkinson
Vauxhall Advance
cparkinson@tabertimes.com

With a new year comes new capital equipment for the Municipal District of Taber.

As part of the preparation for the incoming equipment, a capital equipment purchasing matrix has been made which provides an evaluation template for each machine.

During council’s regular meeting on Jan. 8, councillors got the chance to view the matrix provided for three pieces of equipment which included a motor grader, wheel loader and highway tractor.

“We put an evaluation matrix within each RFP (request for proposal) and we base that on prior and past experience and it is something we deal with with the equipment contractors on an ongoing basis. It gives it an evaluation template for how essential they are going to be judged on a bid application,” said Jeremy Wickson, director of public works.

Equipment RFP’s and RFQs (request for quotation) were distributed to dealers with a purchasing matrix and the closing date and public opening for the 2019 capital equipment closed earlier this month.

For the motor grader, the capital equipment purchasing matrix read as 50 per cent for total price bid/required to meet specifications, 10 per cent for anticipated salvage value, five per cent for conformance to specifications, 20 per cent for operator comfort/acceptance and safety and 10 per cent for past experience/references.

The wheel loader matrix was 30 per cent for total price bid/required to meet specifications, 10 per cent for anticipated salvage value, 10 per cent for anticipated delivery time, 20 per cent for operator comfort/acceptance and safety and 20 per cent past experience/references.

Finally, the highway tractor was listed as 25 per cent for total price bid/required to meet specifications, 10 per cent for anticipated salvage value, 30 per cent for conformance to specifications, five per cent for anticipated delivery time, 10 per cent for operator comfort/acceptance and safety and 20 per cent for past experience/references.

The biggest issue came from Coun. Brian Brewin who questioned why each matrix provided different percentages.

“Some are dependent on what the piece of equipment actually is. When we have two comparable and have been running comparable, for the motor grader, in particular, there is 50 per cent for total price bid after ‘X’ amount of years of putting the same similar contract. When we started with the motor grader, it was around 30 per cent on that portion. As the models have gotten tighter and as we have honed in on our evaluation structure, we are putting more on that price,” explained Wickson.

The motor grader was put out to Finning and Brandt which Wickson pointed out was due to their field support.

“Some of this is region specific. If we were in the capital region, we would probably have a list of 10 vendors. Down here we don’t have as many support systems,” he added.

The wheel loader was bid out to four companies — Finning, Brandt, Rocky Mountain Equipment and C.EM. Heavy Equipment.

“As we are trying not to spread the whole fleet to eight different model brands, we restricted that to what we have in our fleet,” said Wickson in regard to the wheel loader.
Council carried a motion to approve the 2019 capital equipment purchasing matrix.