Title
MOTION TO AWARD IFB # TS-22-04 "LENOVO DESKTOPS" TO THE MOST RESPONSIVE/RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $31,501.20
Summary Explanation and Background
PROCUREMENT PROCESS TAKEN:
- Chapter 35 of the City’s Code of Ordinances is titled “PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES, PUBLIC FUNDS.”
- Section 35.15 defines an Invitation for Bid as “A written solicitation for competitive sealed bids with the title, date and hour of the public bid opening designated therein and specifically defining the commodities or services for which bids are sought. The invitation for bid shall be used when the city is capable of specifically defining the scope of work for which a service is required or when the city is capable of establishing 15 precise specifications defining the actual commodities required. The invitation for bid shall include instructions to bidders, plans, drawings and specifications, if any, bid form and other required forms and documents to be submitted with the bid.”
- Section 35.18 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "COMPETITIVE BIDDING OR COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS.
- Section 35.18(A) states, "A purchase of or contracts for commodities or services that is estimated by the Chief Procurement Officer to cost more than $25,000 shall be based on sealed competitive solicitations as determined by the Chief Procurement Officer, except as specifically provided herein."
- Section 35.19 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "SEALED COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURE."
- Section 35.19(A) states "All sealed competitive solicitations as defined in § 35.18 shall be presented to the City Commission for their consideration prior to advertisement."
- Section 35.21 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "AWARD OF CONTRACT."
- Section 35.21(A) of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "City Commission approval.
- Section 35.21(A)(1) states, "An initial purchase of, or contract for, commodities or services, in excess of $25,000, shall require the approval of the City Commission, regardless of whether the competitive bidding or competitive proposal procedures were followed."
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
1. On May 18, 2022, the City Commission authorized the advertisement of IFB # TS-22-04 “Lenovo Desktops”, which was advertised on May 26, 2022.
2. The purpose of this solicitation was to provide the requested desktops to replace older models currently in use that have become obsolete. The City anticipates utilizing America Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds, thus this project followed Federal Procurement guidelines.
3. On June 21, 2022, the City opened fifteen (15) proposals from the following vendors:
|
Vendor |
Total Cost |
|
ODP Business Solutions, LLC |
$31,501.20 |
|
3034249710 |
$32,440.00 |
|
Focus Camera LLC |
$33,400.00 |
|
Adorama Inc |
$33,735.00 |
|
Above & Beyond Electronics LLC |
$33,795.40 |
|
X-Gen Digital LLC |
$33,820.00 |
|
Computer Design Center |
$33,899.60 |
|
The Soomitz Group |
$33,936.53 |
|
The Soomitz Group - Alternate # 1 |
$33,936.53 |
|
The Soomitz Group - Alternate # 2 |
$33,936.53 |
|
ACP CreativIT LLC |
$33,967.20 |
|
vPrime Tech Inc |
$34,897.40 |
|
Avacend Corporation |
$35,300.00 |
|
Focus Camera LLC - Alternate # 1 |
$35,541.80 |
|
Focus Camera LLC - Alternate # 2 |
$35,899.80 |
4. The Information Technology Department has reviewed the proposals and has deemed ODP Business Solutions, LLC to be the most responsive/responsible proposer.
5. In addition, ODP Business Solutions, LLC has also completed the Equal Benefits Certification Form and has stated that the "Contractor currently complies with the requirements of this section."
6. Request Commission to award IFB # TS-22-04 “Lenovo Desktops” to the most responsive/responsible bidder, ODP Business Solutions, LLC in the amount not to exceed $31,501.20
Reviewed by Commission Auditor.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: $31,501.20
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: Funds are available under account coding # 001-513-2002-664400-0000-000-0000-ARPA1 (Other Equipment)
c) Source of funding for difference, if not fully budgeted: Not Applicable.
d) 5 year projection of the operational cost of the project: Not Applicable.
e) Detail of additional staff requirements: Not Applicable.
FEASIBILITY REVIEW:
A feasibility review is required for the award, renewal and/or expiration of all function sourcing contracts. This analysis is to determine the financial effectiveness of function sourcing services.
a) Was a Feasibility Review/Cost Analysis of Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor Conducted for this service? Not Applicable.
b) If Yes, what is the total cost or total savings of utilizing Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor for this service? Not Applicable.