Police Towing Contract Recommendation_WenzelMEMORANDUM
Januaw 14,2004
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
2003/2006 Towing Contact Recommendation
A committee consisting of Zoning Enfomement Officer Sue Brennan, Police Corporal
Terry Driscoll, Parking System Supervisor Tim Horsfield, Street/Sewer Maintenance
Supervisor John Klostermann, Finance Director Ken TeKippe, Assistant Police Chief
Terry Tobin and Police Lieutenant Neil Weiss was formed to review the submitted
proposals for the 2003/2006 City of Dubuque Towing Contract. Two companies
responded to the request for proposals, Bur[ Steve and Son and Wenzel's Towing.
Each committee member evaluated 10 performance categories. Bur[ Steve and Son
received a collective committee score of 27 and Wenzel's Towing received a collective
committee score of 43.1. A score of 50 represents a perfect score.
The committee met on December 11th and December 17th and determined that
additional information concerning RFP specification deficiencies found at Burt Steve
and Son Garage during the on site inspection should be sought from them before
continuing with the evaluation process. An opportunity was provided to Bur[ Steve and
Son Garage to address these committee concerns with a requested deadline for a reply
by December 30th. Bur[ Steve and Son Garage failed to reply to the request for
additional information sought by the committee to assist in the evaluation of their facility.
The committee met again on January 5, 2004 and at that time proceeded with the
vendor evaluations.
In summary, the results of the committee evaluation are as follows:
The Wenzel Towing facility and equipment currently meets or exceeds the RFP
standards, and the evaluation committee is in agreement that Wenzel Towing
has the ability to meet the demands and requirements of the City towing contract.
The Wenzel facility has no zoning issues to contend with for future expansion
and storage needs and all storage is contained on one site at 275 Salina. The
single location of both indoor and outdoor storage contributes to a much more
efficient operation for both customers whose vehicles have been towed and also
City staff charged with keeping track of towed vehicles and disposing of
abandoned vehicles towed on behalf of the City.
A comparison of Dubuque County dispatch tow calls to Bunt Steve and Son and
Wenzel Towing between the period of June 2002 and November 2003 show a
68% response and tow rate for Bunt Steve and Son and a 98% response and tow
rate for Wenzel Towing. It should be noted that towing companies contacted by
the County for tows are allowed the option to pass on the call if they so choose.
Both firms have adequate equipment that meets the requirements of the RFP.
The Wenzel equipment outscores the Bunt Steve and Son equipment because it
is newer and in better shape. Wenzel's are in the process of replacing two of
their class A wreckers with 2004 models. The oldest wrecker in the Wenzel fleet
is a 1995 class C wrecker. The newest wrecker in the Burt Steve fleet is a 1996
class A wrecker, the oldest one in their fleet is a 1979 Class C wrecker. The
newer, more modem equipment used in the Wenzel fleet was evaluated to be
more dependable for meeting the City's towing needs.
The Wenzel location and facilities were found to be well suited for the
requirements of the City towing contract and meet all required standards. The
business and storage facilities are all located at the 275 Salina address, which
allows for customer and City staff efficiencies.
Butt Steve and Son's indoor storage facility is located at a different site from the
main business, while conforming with the RFP standards as far as location, does
create some customer service and staff efficiency issues that are not present
when all storage areas are located at one address.
A comparison of the raw total price structure for all above charges indicates that
the Wenzel prices are 11.23% higher than the Bunt Steve prices. This
percentage is somewhat misleading though, when the following information is
considered in the price comparison.
Bunt Steve and Son has included a clean up fee charge of $18.00, which Marie
Steve explained would be applicable to tows where it would be necessary to
clean up debris from the roadway such as bumpers or tires, or when it would be
necessary to send another truck to help with clean up and the hauling away of
debris. She said it would not be applicable if a driver only needed to sweep up
some broken glass. If this fee is added to a tow charge it increases the cost of
the Bunt Steve tow to $55.00 during the daytime and $65.00 at night, or
$10.00/tow more expensive than the Wenzel rate. Past records of the police
department indicate that on average, 36% of the police requested tows are for
accidents, which most likely will involve some degree of debris removal and
clean up. The contract standards require the City tow contractor to remove
debris from the roadway related to the tow, but does not speak to the issue of
charging additionally for these services. In the past, this service has been
included as part of the standard tow fee. By Burt Steve adding this fee as an add
on charge in certain cases, it becomes more difficult to regulate and evaluate the
fees charged by the tow contractor. It creates an issue of when is the clean up
fee justified and when does the degree of clean up not rise to the level justifying
the add on charge. It is an ambiguous charge as defined and provides an
avenue for charging a higher price than what is listed.
Another pricing issue that appears upon closer inspection deals with the hours
defined for day and night tows. Burt Steve and Son Garage rates include three
additional hours during a 24-hour period during which night tow rates apply.
Burt Steve towing charges night tow rates 15 hours a day, Wenzel's charge night
tow rates 12 hours a day. This provides Burr Steve and Son 1095 hours per
year, or the equivalent of 45.6 days during which their tow fee is $2.00 per tow
higher than Wenzel's fee.
It is important to note that price is only one of the categories evaluated in this case.
This is a service contract and the level of service provided to the citizen customers is
very important. The small difference in pricing did not override these customer service
issues for the committee.
The Towing Committee and Chief of Police Klm Wadding recommend that the City
Council approve award of the 2003/2006 Towing Contract to Wenzel's Towing.
I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council
approval.
MichaeIC Van * *
MCVM/jh
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
Klm B. Wadding, Chief of Police
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 13, 2004
To: Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
From: Kim B. Wadding~.'~)
Police Chief
Re: City of Dubuque 2003/2006 Towing Contract - Recommendation
INTRODUCTION
The City of Dubuque Towing Contract Committee has completed its review of the
submitted request for proposals (RFP) for the 2003/2006 City of Dubuque Towing
Contract. Based upon their findings, the committee is recommending the contract to be
awarded to Wenzel's Towing.
BACKGROUND
As part of the renewal process for the 2003/2006 City of Dubuque Towing Contract, a
city committee consisting of seven members was formulated to review the submitted
requests for proposals and recommend the awarding of the contract. The seven
members included:
Sue Brennan
Corporal Terry Driscoll
Tim Horsfield
John Klostermann
Planning and Zoning
Police
Parking
Operations and Maintenance
Ken TeKippe Finance
Assistant Chief Terry Tobin, Chair Police
Lieutenant Nell Weiss Police
Of the 11 requests for proposals sent to area tow companies two were returned for
consideration, Butt Steve and Son and Wenzel's Towing.
DISCUSSION
Attached is a memorandum outlining the committee's review and evaluation of the two
contract proposals. As outlined in the RFP, each committee member evaluated 10
performance categories. The categories encompassed three major areas: Technical
Capabilities, Demonstrated Availability, and Financial Capabilities. Each category had a
value of five possible points, from (1) lowest to (5) highest for a total of 50 possible
points. The three major areas and categories include:
Contract History 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
References 1 2 3 4 5
)leteness of Proposal 12345
Amount & Type of Equipment
Personnel
12345
2345 Lot Capa and Potential 12345
Price Quotation 12345 Financial Stability 12345
Based upon these areas and individual category, Bur[ Steve and Son received a
collective committee score of 27 and Wenzel's Towing received a collective committee
score of 43.1.
RECOMMENDATION
After careful consideration and review, the Towing Committee recommends Wenzel's
Towing for the 2003/2006 City of Dubuque Towing Contract. I agree with their
recommendation.
ACTION REQUESTED
Request City Council consideration of the City of Dubuque Towing Committee's
recommendation for approval of the City of Dubuque 2003/2006 Towing Contract.
Attachment
Cc: Jeanne Schneider, City Clerk
Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager
THE CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
January 12,2004
TO: Chief of Police Klm Wadding
FROM: Assistant Chief Terry Tobin ~
REF: Towing RFP evaluation and recommendation
Sir;
In response to the City of Dubuque's most recent request for proposals to enter
into a contract for City towing services, bids were received from two vendors,
Burt Steve and Son Garage, Inc. and Wenzel Towing, Inc. A committee was
formed to review the proposals and inspect the bidder's facilities and equipment
in order to evaluate the proposals and make a recommendation on a selected
towing service for the City of Dubuque to enter into a contract with. The
committee evaluating the proposals consisted of Assistant Police Chief Terry
Tobin, Lt. Nell Weiss, and Cpl. Terry Driscoll, all of the Dubuque Police
Department, Ken TeKippe from the City Finance Division, John Klostermann
from the City Operations and Maintenance Department, Tim Horsfield from the
City Parking Division, and Sue Brennan from the City Planning and Zoning
Division.
The above committee members met on December 11, 2003 and inspected the
facilities and equipment of both vendors submitting proposals. The committee
met again on December 17th and determined that additional information
concerning RFP specification deficiencies found at Burt Steve and Son Garage
during the on site inspection should be sought from them before continuing with
the evaluation process. An opportunity was provided to Burt Steve and Son
Garage to address these committee concerns with a requested deadline for a
reply by December 30th. Burt Steve and Son Garage failed to reply to the
request for additional information sought by the committee to assist in the
evaluation of their facility. The committee met again on January 5, 2004 and at
that time proceeded with the vendor evaluations.
As per the RFP specifications, the committee evaluated the vendors in each of
ten categories, with an overall score of 50 points representing a perfect score.
The individual committee member scores, in no particular order, were as follows:
Burt Steve Wenzel
A) 22 41
B) 29 44
C) 30 45
D) 28 48
E) 28 49
F) 23 37
G) 29 38
Average 27.0 43.1
It is the unanimous recommendation of the City Towing Contract Award
Committee that the contract for City of Dubuque towing services be awarded to
Wenzel Towing, Inc. The rest of this memo will discuss the rationale behind the
above scores and the recommendation of the award to Wenzel Towing of the
City towing contract.
At this time, and during the inspection conducted by the evaluation committee,
Burt Steve and Son Garage fails to meet a number of specifications called for in
the RFP. Specifically, the security fencing at the outdoor storage lot at 3366
Crescent Ridge has not been installed. Additionally, a proposed off site indoor
storage facility located at 3185 Hughes Court lacks an alarm system and
adequate security lighting (rear of the building) as required in the RFP. At the
time of the on site inspections, Marie Steve assured the committee members
their firm would install the required fencing, alarm systems, and security lighting.
However, when pressed for specific plans or details on how their firm would
eliminate the deficiencies and come into compliance with the RFP standards
within 30 days of the awarding of the contract, Mrs. Steve could provide no
specific bid prices or contractors that were lined up to come in and do the work
should Burt Steve and Son Garage be awarded the contract. Concerning the
construction of the required fencing at the Crescent Ridge location, Mrs. Steve
said that they could do that work themselves or else if they were busy, "knew
some people" that could install the fencing for them.
Because of the RFP's provision allowing a selected vendor a 30 day period to
come into compliance with the fencing requirement, the committee theorized that
the 30 day period might also apply to the off site alarm and security lighting
requirements and Burt Steve and Son Garage was not eliminated as a
prospective vendor solely based on those RFP deficiencies with their facilities.
At our December 17th meeting, the committee decided to contact Burr Steve and
Son Garage and request specifics from them as to how they would come into
compliance with the RFP requirements. I spoke with Marie Steve that morning
2
and also had a letter hand delivered to their business the following day asking
the Steve's to provide the committee with information on the type of fencing or
wall proposed for their facility on Crescent Ridge and how it would be
constructed or installed, and by whom. We also requested information on the
type of alarm and security lighting proposed for the off site indoor storage facility
at 3185 Hughes Court and what, if any, arrangements had been made to select a
contractor to install these items upon the awarding of a contract for towing
services. (See attached letter) The Steve's were asked to respond to this
request by December 30th SO that the committee would be able to use the above
information to evaluate the potential of their facilities to come into compliance
with the RFP standards. No reply was received from the Steve's to this request
for additional information.
Another issue making evaluation of the Burr Steve and Son facility difficult is the
current zoning of the property. Burt Steve and Son needs to obtain a variance
from the zoning board to install the eight (8) foot tall fence required by the RFP.
Current zoning regulations only allow seven (7) foot tall fencing on their property.
It is our understanding that the Steve's are scheduled with the zoning board of
adjustment for a variance hearing on January 22, 2004 to try and obtain the
required variance. Without this variance, they will not be able to construct
fencing of the height required by the contract standards. The zoning issue also
forbids any expansion of their storage yard in the event they cannot handle the
vehicle storage requirements of the towing contract.
In comparison, the Wenzel Towing facility and equipment currently meets or
exceeds the RFP standards, and the evaluation committee is in agreement that
Wenzel Towing has the ability to meet the demands and requirements of the City
towing contract. The Wenzel facility has no zoning issues to contend with for
future expansion and storage needs and all storage is contained on one site at
275 Salina. The single location of both indoor and outdoor storage contributes to
a much more efficient operation for both customers whose vehicles have been
towed and also City staff charged with keeping track of towed vehicles and
disposing of abandoned vehicles towed on behalf of the City.
I will now summarize the committee's ratings of both towing contractors in the ten
categories they were evaluated on.
1) Contract History
BS 3 3 3 N/A 4 N/A 3 Avg. 3.2
W 3 5 5 5 5 4 3 Avg. 4.3
Comments generally reflected that the references submitted by both companies
reported good performance history in their dealings with the respective towing
companies. Wenzel Towing was cited as having provided exceptional service to
the City for the past 12 years they have been under contract and that they have a
3
good record keeping system. One committee member expressed concern over
Bur[ Steve and Son's record keeping a number of years prior when the City used
a rotational towing system.
2) References
BS 3 4 5 5 5 3 4 Avg. 4.1
W 3 4 5 5 5 3 4 Avg. 4.1
As evidenced by the above scores, both tow contractors were evaluated evenly
by all of the committee members concerning the references they provided.
Comments reflected that all references gave favorable reviews of the tow
contractor they were providing references for.
3) Past Performance
BS I 3 3 N/A 1 3 3 Avg. 2.3
W 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 Avg. 4.6
Comments on past performance reflected Wenzel's record of excellent past
performance on the City contract. A comparison of Dubuque County dispatch
tow calls to Bur[ Steve and Son and Wenzel Towing between the period of June
2002 and November 2003 showing a 68% response and tow rate for Burt Steve
and Son and a 98% response and tow rate for Wenzel Towing was cited by a
number of the committee members in their scoring. It should be noted that
towing companies contacted by the County for tows are allowed the option to
pass on the call if they so choose.
4) Completeness of Proposal
BS 1 1 2 3 1
2 2 Avg. 1.7
W 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 Avg. 4.9
Comments reflected the professional way Wenzel Towing put together their
proposal and addressed all of the areas requested in detail. Other than a minor
insurance detail, the Wenzel proposal required no follow up by committee
members to confirm their compliance with the contract standards.
The Bur[ Steve proposal was cited for its lack of information as to how the firm
will meet the requirements of the City towing contract. The proposal lacked detail
and when the firm was asked to provide additional information to the committee
concerning their plans to meet all of the contract requirements within a 30-day
period if chosen for the contract, they failed to respond. The insurance certificate
submitted with the proposal reflected an expired coverage date and a number of
items needed to be followed up on to determine if proper insurance coverage
was in place to meet the RFP requirements. Many questions remain about the
4
ability of Burt Steve and Son Garage to meet the requirements of the City towing
contract due to the lack of information provided by the firm in the initial proposal
submitted, and the failure to submit upon request information sought by the
committee.
It was felt by the committee that the quality of the proposals submitted is a
reflection of the professionalism and capabilities of the firms.
5) Amount and Type of Equipment
BS 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
Avg. 2.9
W 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 Avg. 4.6
Both firms have adequate equipment that meets the requirements of the RFP.
The Wenzel equipment outscores the Burt Steve and Son equipment because it
is newer and in better shape. Wenzel's are in the process of replacing two of
their class A wreckers with 2004 models. The oldest wrecker in the Wenzel fleet
is a 1995 class C wrecker. The newest wrecker in the Burt Steve fleet is a 1996
class A wrecker, the oldest one in their fleet is a 1979 Class C wrecker. The
newer, more modern equipment used in the Wenzel fleet was evaluated to be
more dependable for meeting the City's towing needs. On the date of the on site
inspections (12/11/03) all of the Wenzel trucks had the required auxiliary
equipment required by the RFP on board. One of the Butt Steve trucks was
found to be without a set of wheel dollies and one was without a fire extinguisher.
6) Personnel
BS 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Avg. 2.7
W 4 4 5 5 5 3 4 Avg. 4.3
Both firms are rated to have sufficient drivers to meet the requirements of the
contract. The committee questions the adequacy of the office staffing at Burr
Steve and Son Towing to meet the demands placed on it if awarded the City
towing contract. During the on site inspection on 12/11/03 while Marie Steve
showed the committee around the complex there was no additional personnel
covering the office. The phone rang several times and was not answered while
Mrs. Steve dealt with the committee. The City contract will bring an influx of
customers that will need to be dealt with, including customers that will have to be
accompanied by someone from Burt Steve to the inside storage yard on Hughes
Court (which will not be staffed, according to Mrs. Steve) to retrieve their car. It
appears to the committee that Burr Steve and Son will need additional office
staffing to meet the customer service/office demands this contract generates. No
acknowledgement of this need or plan to meet additional office staffing and
record keeping needs created by the additional business generated through the
City contract has been addressed by Burr Steve and Son.
5
Wenzel Towing had two employees manning the office at the time of our on site
inspection.
7) Lot Location and Facilities
BS 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 Avg. 2.0
W 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 Avg. 4.7
The Wenzel location and facilities were found to be well suited for the
requirements of the City towing contract and meet all required standards. The
location is in the downtown area where a large number of the City tows originate.
It is possible for people paying fines and arranging for their vehicles to be
released from custody to walk from either the Police Department or the Parking
Division offices to Wenzel's business facility. The business and storage facilities
are all located at the 275 Salina address, which allows for customer and City staff
efficiencies as alluded to earlier, not to mention towing company efficiencies.
The Wenzel location has the proper zoning to operate the business and allows
for further expansion if necessary. There are no residential areas close to the
Wenzel facility that might be disturbed by the towing and storage activities
generated under the City towing contract. Both the inside and outside storage
areas were found to be well organized and clean. The office area also was found
to be clean and well organized.
Lot location and facilities present the biggest question marks concerning Burt
Steve and Son's ability to meet the requirements of the City towing contract. As
mentioned earlier, the facilities do not currently meet standards for security
fencing of the outside storage yard, lack an alarm system at the off site indoor
storage facility, and lack proper security lighting at the rear of the off site indoor
storage facility. When requested to provide information on how they would
address these deficiencies within a 30-day time frame upon awarding of the
contract, Burt Steve and Son did not respond. The committee still is confused
concerning the exact layout Burt Steve intends to use for their outside storage
area. At least three different versions of the layout have been presented. During
the inspection it was noted that the surface of the outside storage area, which is
required by standard to be a minimum of packed gravel, had areas where mud
and deep ruts were present on the south side of the building. The indoor storage
facility located at a different site from the main business, while conforming with
the RFP standards as far as location, does create some logistic and staff
efficiency issues that are not present when all storage areas are located at one
address.
The Burt Steve facility on Crescent Ridge is a non-conforming use property; it is
located in a residential zoned area but was grandfathered in when annexed by
the City. As such, they now must obtain a zoning board variance in order to
install the required eight (8) foot security fencing or wall. They cannot expand
the vehicle storage area at this facility if needed because of the non-conforming
6
use. The acceptance bythe residential neighbors ofthe increased business
traffic at the Burr Steve facility generated by the City towing contract and the
increased number of vehicles stored on the property is another unknown with the
Burt Steve location.
In short, the Wenzel facility is well suited for meeting the needs of the City towing
contract and conforms to all standards required by the contract. The Butt Steve
facility does not currently meet standards and questions remain as to the Steve's
plans and abilities to bring the facilities up to standards within 30 days if awarded
the contract.
8) Lot Capacity and Potential
BS 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 Avg. 2.0
W 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 Avg. 4.9
Wenzel's inside and outside storage capacity not only meet, but also exceed the
current RFP storage requirements. Wenzel's excess capacity allows for storage
over and above what is required by the contract, thus they do have the potential
to store increased numbers of cars should the City requirements grow. They
also have the proper zoning to expand the storage yard should it become
necessary at some point during the term of the contract. Enough additional
storage space is available that stored vehicles do not need to be stacked tight,
making access to a vehicle needing release less difficult and time consuming.
The inside storage facility proposed for lease by Burt Steve and Son meets the
storage requirements of the contract with the possibility of 3-5 additional cars,
based on the storage footprint of a typical midsize car. If it would become
necessary to store a number of large vehicles or trucks at the Burt Steve inside
storage facility, it is questionable whether or not they could store the required 25
vehicles. There is virtually no potential for expanded indoor storage at the site
proposed for lease by Burt Steve and Son.
There is still confusion on the part of the evaluation committee as to what the
exact layout for outside storage proposed by Burr Steve and Son is. At the time
of the committee's on site inspection (12/11) one potential layout was described
to committee members. On 12116, Marie Steve delivered a drawing showing a
different layout than had been described during the on site inspection. A drawing
submitted with the Steve's zoning board variance hearing request shows a third
proposed layout. Due to these varying designs it has been difficult to determine
what the approximate outside storage capabilities of the Burr Steve complex on
Crescent Ridge will be. It was felt by the committee that Burt Steve and Son
probably would have the square footage to store the minimum 60 vehicles
outside as required by the RFP, but what potential there is for additional vehicles,
if needed, is difficult to determine. It is known that because of the non-
conforming zoning use, future expansion of the storage area will not be possible.
There currently are vehicles and old trucks stored in the area proposed by the
Steve's for City towed vehicle storage. Marie Steve said that these vehicles
would be moved to accommodate the City storage needs. Based on the areas
proposed for storage, these vehicles would need to be moved either to the front
of the business or else the west side, making them more visible to the
surrounding residential neighbors.
9) Price Quotation
BS 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 Avg. 4.0
W 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 Avg. 3.1
TOW PRICING
2000 Wenzel Burt Steve
Grou 1: Class A Tow Fees Price List Bid Bid
1 Standard Tow (W6 A.M-6 P.M.) (8 A.M.-5 P.M.) $45.00 $45.00 $37.00
2 Night Tow (VV6 P.M.-6 A.M.) (5 P.M.-8 A.M.) $55.00 $55.00 $47.00
3 Dolly Fee $35.00 $35.00 $28.00
4 Winching (1s, half hour) $35.00 $40.00 $28.00
5 Winching (After 1~ half hour) $35.00 $40.00 $28.00
6 Standby Time (1s' half hour) $25.00 $30.00 $18.00
7 Standby Time (After 1s~ half hour) $20.00 $25.00 $18.00
8 Mileage Outside City Limits $2.00 $2.25 $2.00
9 Show Up Fee $20.00 $20.00 $20.00
10 Go Jacks $10.00 $10.00 $20.00
11 Clean Up Fee N/A N/A $18.00
Group 1: Class C Towing and/or Recovery
12 First Hour (per unit)
13 After F rst Hour (per un t)
2000 Wenzel Burr Steve
Price List Bid Bid
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
$95.00
$95.00
Group 1: Storage Fees per day
2000 Wenzel Burt Steve
Price List Bid Bid
14 Cars, Pickups, Motorcycles (Outside Storage) $10.00 $12.00 $9.50
15 Cars, Pickups, Motorcycles (Inside Storage-by $12.00 $15.00 $12.00
owner request)
16 Trucks, Tractors, busses $25.00 $30.00 $23.00
17 Truck Tractor Trailers $25.00 $30.00 $23.00
18 After Hours Release Charge (if any) $25.00 $30.00 $20.00
2000 Wenzel Bur[ Steve
1 Standard Tow (W6 A.M.-6 P.M.) (8 A.M.-5 P.M.) $45.00 $45.00 $37.00
2 Night Tow (W6 PM.-6 A.M.) (5 P.M.-8 A.M.) $55.00 $55.00 $47.00
3 Dolly Fee $35.00 $35.00 $28.00
4 Winching (1~ half hour) $35.00 $40.00 $28.00
5 Winching (After 1~ half hour) $35.00 $40.00 $28.00
6 Standby Time (1~ half hour) $25.00 $30.00 $18.00
7 Standby Time (After 1~ half hour) $20.00 $25.00 $18.00
8 Mileage Outside City Limits $2.00 $2.25 $2.00
9 Show Up Fee $20.00 $20.00 $20.00
10 Go Jacks $10.00 $10.00 $20.00
11 Clean Up Fee N/A N/A $18.00
Group 2: Class A Tow Fees Price Lis1 Bid Bid
2OOO
Group 2: Class C Towing and/or Recovery Price List
Wenzel Bur[ Steve
Bid Bid
11% First Hour (per unit)
After 1~ Hour (per unit)
$100.00 $100.00
$100.00 $100.00
$95.00
$95.00
Totals for all charges combined
$1061.00 $1121.50 $995.50
A comparison of the raw total price structure for all above charges indicates that
the Wenzel prices are 11.23% higher than the Bur[ Steve prices. This
percentage is somewhat misleading though, when the following information is
considered in the price comparison.
Bur[ Steve and Son has included a clean up fee charge of $18.00, which Marie
Steve explained would be applicable to tows where it would be necessary to
clean up debris from the roadway such as bumpers or tires, or when it would be
necessary to send another truck to help with clean up and the hauling away of
debris. She said it would not be applicable if a driver only needed to sweep up
some broken glass. If this fee is added to a tow charge it increases the cost of
the Bur[ Steve tow to $55.00 during the daytime and $65.00 at night, or
$10.00/tow more expensive than the Wenzel rate. Past records of the police
department indicate that on average, 36% of the police requested tows are for
accidents, which most likely will involve some degree of debris removal and
clean up. The contract standards require the City tow contractor to remove
debris from the roadway related to the tow, but does not speak to the issue of
charging additionally for these services. In the past, this service has been
included as par[ of the standard tow fee. By adding this fee as an add on charge
in certain cases, it becomes more difficult to regulate and evaluate the fees
charged by the tow contractor. It creates an issue of when is the clean up fee
justified and when does the degree of clean up not rise to the level justifying the
9
add on charge. It is an ambiguous charge as defined and provides an avenue for
charging a higher price than what is listed for a standard or night tow.
Another pricing issue that appears upon closer inspection deals with the hours
defined for day and night tows. Bur[ Steve and Son Garage rates include three
additional hours during a 24-hour period during which night tow rates apply.
Burt Steve towing charges night tow rates 15 hours a day, Wenzel's charge night
tow rates 12 hours a day. This provides Burr Steve and Son 1095 hours per
year, or the equivalent of 45.6 days during which their tow fee is $2.00 per tow
higher than Wenzel's fee, assuming a clean up charge is not added on to the fee,
at which point the tow becomes $20.00 more expensive than the Wenzel rate.
Some committee members expressed concerns as to whether or not the fees
quoted by Bur[ Steve and Son will be adequate to allow them to cover the
additional investment necessary to come into compliance with the contract
standards. Capital investments will be necessary for fencing, alarm system and
security lighting installation at the off site facility, additional office personnel that
may be necessary to handle the increased customer service needs, and the
$18,000 per year rental fees quoted for the off site facility on Hughes Court.
Prices quoted for the current bid are lower than those submitted last summer,
when they bid with no expectation for additional investment other than fencing at
their Crescent Ridge facility.
10) Financial Stability
BS 3 4 3 5 5 3 3 Avg. 3.7
W 3 4 3 5 5 3 3 Avg. 3.7
All committee members rated both of the tow vendors even in the category of
financial stability. Both are viewed as long standing businesses in the community
and both have the proper insurance coverage's required by the RFP.
Conclusion
It is the opinion of the evaluation committee that in this selection process, bid
pricing is only one often categories and should not be weighted
disproportionately in the awarding of the City of Dubuque towing contract. Burt
Steve and Son's higher score in the price quotation category does not override
the higher scores received by Wenzel Towing in seven other categories and their
overall higher score. Wenzel Towing currently meets all ofthe RFP/contract
standards and has had an excellent performance history on past City contracts.
Burt Steve and Son Garage do not currently meet several of the RFP/contract
standards and when asked to provide their plans for coming into compliance if
awarded the City of Dubuque towing contract, they failed to provide a response.
10
We respectfully submit for your, the City Manager, and the City Council's
consideration our recommendation that the City of Dubuque towing contract be
awarded to Wenzel Towing, Inc.
11
Police Department
Law Enforcement Center
770 Iowa S~ceet
1~O. Box 875
Dubuque, Iowa 52004438~5
(563) 5894410 office
(563) 5894497 fax
December 17, 2003
Burt Steve and Son Garage
3366 Crescent Ridge
Dubuque, IA 52003
Attn: Marie Steve
Dear Marie,
As a follow up to our phone conversation this morning, I am forwarding to you
and your firm our request for additional information pertaining to your proposal to
meet the terms required for the City of Dubuque tow contract. As stated this
morning, I am asking that you forward to me the requested information by
Tuesday, December 30, 2003.
The committee evaluating the submitted proposals would like information
detailing your firm's plans to meet the requirements for an alarm system at your
proposed off site indoor storage facility located at 3185 Hughes Court. We would
also like your plans on meeting the security lighting requirement for the off site
facility on Hughes Court, specifically security lighting at the rear of the building.
The requested information should include the type of alarm system proposed for
the off site facility, including type of sensor's proposed, where or how the alarm
signal is sent and received, and who would be contracted with for installation.
For the security lighting requirement, we would like information as to what type of
lighting system is proposed, and again, what arrangements will be made for
installation either before or within the 30 day period following awarding of a
contract.
Concerning the plans and drawing you submitted for meeting the security fencing
requirements at your on site facility at 3366 Crescent Ridge, you indicated to me
on Tuesday, December 16th when you delivered the drawing that there was some
question as to the availability of enough of the cement blocks previously used to
construct the wall to continue that method of wall/fencing. When our committee
visited your site on Thursday, December 11th, you had indicated that your plans
were to add another row of the cement blocks to bring the wall to an approximate
height of six (6) feet, then add four (4) feet Of chain link fencing on top of the
Service People Integrity Responsibility- Innovation Teamwork
cement blocks to meet the eight (8) foot minimum security fencing requirement.
Our committee would request that you look into the availability of the cement
blocks you proposed using for additional wall height and then make a
determination as to the method you will use to add to the height of the existing
wall to meet the required standard, either using additional blocks and fencing on
top, or just using fencing on top of the existing blocks. The committee would like
to know what your specific fencing construction method will be to meet the
standard. We also request that you provide us information concerning the
number and placement of access gates to your proposed outside storage yard at
your facility at 3366 Crescent Ridge.
As we discussed this morning in our phone conversation, it is important to
remember that the eight (8) foot wall/fencing requirement is
determined/measured by the outside height of the wall/fencing measured from
the ground surface on that side of the wall/fence and is intended to provide a
minimum of eight feet barrier from the outside area. Any backfill or dirt surface
against the outside of the current retaining wall has the potential to require
additional barrier height from what is necessary to meet the height requirement
from inside the storage yard. It also should be kept in mind that any fencing
installed on top of the cement blocks will need to be installed flush with the outer
edge of the cement in such a manner so that there is no outer ledge available to
stand on the cement block allowing a potential trespasser to defeat the height of
the cement wall unless the fencing rises a minimum of eight feet above the
cement block ledge.
Our committee's understanding is that you realize you need a variance from the
planning and zoning board to construct fencing in excess of seven (7) feet and
that you have taken out an application to be to submitted requesting placement
on the agenda for a January 22, 2004 variance hearing. It is also our
understanding that you have been contacted by a member of the City of
Dubuque Building Department informing you of the need to obtain a building
permit that was necessary for the construction of the current cement block wall
which is proposed as part of your security wall/fencing, and to which you propose
adding additional height to meet the wall/fencing requirements.
You requested a roster of the people making up the committee evaluating the
proposals submitted for the City of Dubuque towing contract. The committee is
made up of seven members including myself, Lt. Nell Weiss, and Cpl. Terry
Driscoll, all from the Dubuque Police Department, Ken TeKippe from the City of
Dubuque Finance Division, John Klostermann from the City of Dubuque
Operations and Maintenance Division, Tim Horsfleld from the City of Dubuque
Parking Division, and Sue Brennan from the City of Dubuque Planning and
Zoning Division.
I hope this letter further clarifies for you our committee's request for additional
information concerning your submitted proposal. If you have any questions
regarding the information being sought, or concerning the variance and permit
requirements referred to above, please call me at (563) 589-4444.
Sincerely,
Terry Tobin
Assistant Chief of Police