CF-Village-CN 881213 SUB?fiSSiON i.LAI~LINE: 5:00 p.m. Moudav - 8 iJays l'teceuing UiL? Couuc~i Heetiug
Rev.: Effective 1/20/88
FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 12/13/88 ~
l. REF/FILE NL~BER : 381 - A
II. ITEF,! CAPTION : Waive informalities, consider proposals, and assi.,.°n three
Worthington 10-LR-18A pumps with Reliance, I~P-II, 82dB motors to the
successful contractor for the Village Parkway Pump Station in the amount
of ~179,772.00.
III. ACTION RECOMMENDED : Accept proposal and assi~.~n to successful contractorJ
'
·
....... ..................
IV. REP. IN ATTENDANCE A: STA~ell'"';~e,P.E. '')
B: OTHER - Gi~, Inc. - H.' Wa~e Gi~, P.E., S~ford Case, PE
V. NOTIFICATION TO : N/A
METHOD OF CONTACT :
DATE :
VI. FINANCIAL REVIEW : 1. BUDGETED ITEM : xxx YES NO
2. BUDGET AMOUNT :
3. ESTIMATED AMOUNT FOR THIS ITEM :
4. AMOUNT OVER OR UNDER BUDGET :
5. LOW BIDDER RECOMMENDED : YES xxx NO
SOURCE OF FUNDING
CO'S OR BONDS FUNDS · Revenue Bonds
(Series or year authorized) :
OPERATING BUDGET (Account Number) :
OTHER :
APPROVED BY CITY MANAGER :
ITEM NUMBER ~
AGENDA REOUEST FORM
................. n~rl~£~ .........................................
: ....'ORT I)OC~ .... iAI'lOb: F'OR A(-:.!':J.~A ITI'.~.!
* DATE RECEIVED *
* YIME ~' * --
* To be completed by City Manager Dept.*
****************************************
SUPPORT DOCI~ENTATION SUBMITTED AMOUNT PER/SET NO. OF PAGES DATE SUBMITTED
MEMORANDI~S ....................... :
LETTERS ........................... : 1 1 12/5/88
REPORTS ........................... : 1 5 12/5/88
BILLS ............................. :
BID ............................... :
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT ................ :
MINUTES ........................... :
ORDINANCE ......................... ;
RESOLUTION ........................ :
PROCLAMATION ...................... :
,MAPS .............................. :
ZONING PLANS ...................... :
PR~JIMINARY PLATS ................. :
FINAL PLATS ....................... :
SITE PLANS ........................ :
LANDSCAPE PLANS ................... :
ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS .......... :
OTHER ............................. :
REVIEWED BY (If applicable) SIGNATURE DATE REVIEWED
CITY ATTORNEY ..................... :
FINANCE DIRECTOR .................. :
OTHER ............................. :
SUBMITTED BY SIGNATURE DATE SUBMITTED
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ............... : .
APPROVED BY SIGNATURE DATE APPROVED
CITY MA~NAGER ...................... :
DENIED BY SIGNATURE
CITY MANAGER ...................... :
Additional documentation required
Need for further discussion
7 Submitted after deadline
At the request of
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION FOR AGENDA ITEM
I. Item #21 City Council Agenda Dated: 12-13-88
II. COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATION:
The cost of the pumps in the amount of $179,772 will be
included in the contract for construction of the Village
Parkway Pump Station.
GINN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
December 5, 1988
Mr. Russell Doyle, P.E., City Engineer
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Re: Pumps & Motors for the
Village Parkway Pump Station
Dear Mr. Doyle:
Bids were received for the above referenced items on November 1,
1988 at 10:00 A.M. in the Coppell Town Center. Two firms
submitted proposals for a total of seven (7) alternates to the
specifications. As submitted, no proposals complied with the
project specifications for the Pumps and Motors.
The project specifications were reviewed and all proposals
evaluated for compliance with motor bearings, temperature rise,
noise, delivery date, efficiency, ect.
Based on our technical evaluation (see attached), we feel that
the three (3) Worthington 10-LR-18A Pumps with Reliance, WP-II,
82 dB Motors as submitted by Dresser Industries, Inc. is the
lowest acceptable bid (with revised Worthington Specification
Comments dated 11-18-88). Therefore, we recommend that the City
Council wave informalities and assign these three (3) Pumps and
Motors in the total amount of $179,772.00 to the Successful
Contractor for the Village Parkway Pump Station.
We will be available at the December 13, 1988 Council Meeting to
discuss this item. Please feel free to contact us if you need
additional information.
Sincerely,
H. Wayne Ginn, P.E.
HWG/SWC
cc: Alan Ratliff Sanford Case, P.E.
Frank Trando File 380
Steve Goram
17103 Preston Road · Suite 100 ® LB 118 · Dallas. Texas 75248 · Phone 214/248-4900
PUMP EVALUATION
Each proposal has been evaluated for conformance to the Plans and
Specifications. As submitted, none of the proposals conform to
the required specifications for the pumping units. Pumps 1, 2,
and 6 do not meet the required bearings or temperature rise
specifications. Pumps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not meet the required
noise criteria. Pumps 6 and 7 do not meet the required delivery
dates. Therefore, we have attempted to evaluate the proposals to
determine which ones could possibly be acceptable alternatives.
Units 1, 2, and 6 were submitted with USEM (United States
Electric Motors). This motor utilizes a standard grease
lubricated bearing. The Specifications require a split sleeve
oil lubricated bearing. A grease lubricated bearing requires
careful maintenance and is susceptible to failure from over,
under, or improper greasing. The oil lubricated bearings which
are specified utilize a reservoir with a sight glass which
simplifies inspection and maintenance. Oil lubricated bearings
will have an almost indefinite life if the reservoir level is
properly maintained.
The USEM motors also fail to meet the specification for
temperature rise. The temperature rise of the USEM motor is 80°
C at a 1.0 service factor instead of the required 1.15 service
factor. This means the USEM motor will run hotter at full load
than a motor which meets the 1.15 service factor. In general,
the hotter the operating temperature, the shorter the life of the
motor insulation. Our consultants advise us that a motor
complying with the 1.15 service factor will last approximately
twice as long as one complying with the 1.0 service factor.
Based on the bearings and temperature rise factors, we feel that
the pumping units submitted with USEM motors (No. 1, 2, and 6)
are unacceptable for this project and no further evaluation will
be performed on them.
Noise is another factor on which the units were evaluated. The
type of enclosure determines the noise of the pumping unit. The
Specifications require a noise level not to exceed 76 dB at 3
feet. Noise is a difficult parameter to evaluate. As a rule of
thumb, doubling the intensity of a sound will result in
approximately a 3 dB increase. Due to the sound absorbing
ceiling in the pump room, we recommend that a variance to the 76
dB specification be allowed. Upon re-evaluation, we feel that
pumps with noise levels at or below 82 dB at 3 feet will be
acceptable. OSHA currently allows an 8 hour exposure limit of 90
dB; however, several attempts have been made to lower the limit
to 85 dB. Even with two pumps running, the total noise level for
two - 82 dB pumps would be approximately 85 dB which is within
acceptable levels. Based on the revised noise level, pump No. 3
(86 dB) was eliminated from evaluation.
GINN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS VILLAGE PARKWAY PUMP STATION
DALLAS, TEXAS PROJECT NO. 380 CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
pU~p Evaluation (~nt.) November 15, 1988
~ Page 2 of 3
Pumps 4, 5, and 7 were then subjected to the following
performance efficiency evaluation:
Design
Guar. Pump One Pump One Pump Two Pump
Eff. Eff High Head Low Head Design
W-W % % Ft-GPM-Eff Ft-GPM-Eff GPM-Eff
Pump 4 & $
Worthington 84.25 88.5 235' 182' 245'
10-LR-18A w/ 5,800 8,200 5,200 ea
Reliance WP-II 86% 85% 85.5%
80 or 82 dB Encl.
Pump ?
Imo - Delaval 83.96 88.0 235' 182' 245'
P16/14D w/ 5,900 8,000 5,250 ea
Reliance WP-II 86% 84% 85.5%
76 dB Enclosure
Specified Min. 83.0 87.5 245'
5,500 8,000 5,200
85.0 % 86.0 % 84.0 %
From the pre-bid efficiency analysis, it was determined that each
percentage point of wire-to-water efficiency (W-W) represents
approximately $7,000 of present value additional cost (savings)
from the specified minimum W-W efficiency over a twenty year
operating period.
Total Per Eff. Net
Bid Unit (Bonus) Equivalent
Price Penalty Cost (Ea)
Pump 4
Worthington
10-AR-ISA w/
Reliance WP-II
82 dB Enclosure $179,772.00 59,924.00 (8,750) $51,174.00
Pump $
Worthington
10-LR-18A w/
Reliance WP-II
80 dB Enclosure $185,553.00 61,851.00 (8,750) $53,101.00
Pump ?
Imo - Delaval
P16/14D w/
Reliance WP-II
76 dB Enclosure $247,946.00 82,648.67 (6,720) $75,928.67
GINN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS VILLAGE PARKWAY PUMP STATION
DALLAS, TEXAS PROJECT NO. 380 CITY OF COPPELL, TEX~S
Pump Evaluation ('-nt.) November 15, 1988
~ Page 3 of 3
Additionally, Worthington has guaranteed delivery of the pumping
units within the specified 225 calendar days. Imo-Delaval has
taken exception to the required delivery time. Based on the
delivery dates and the low net equivalent cost per unit of Pump 4
in the above analysis, we recommend that the City Council wave
informalities and designate the Worthington 10-LR-18A pumps with
Reliance WP-II, 82 dB Enclosure Motors as the lowest acceptable
bid and assign them in the amount of $179,772.00 to the
Successful Contractor for the Village Parkway Pump Station.
Respectfully Submitted,
GINN INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~--.~.: .... '.' ....
f
Sanford W. Case, P.E.
59993
Pro~ ect Nanager ~.~,,~_ _~,,~
GINN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS VILLAGE P~RKWAY PUMP STATION
DALLAS, TEXAS PROJECT NO. 380 CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS