MINUTES TRANSPORTATION BUILDING & TECHNOLOGY MONTHLY MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MINUTES
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING & TECHNOLOGY
MONTHLY MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2021
6:00 p.m.
LAW LIBRARY
PRESENT: Dave Bellis, Les Post, Ryan Hinkamper, Joe Zanger, and John Brady
ABSENT: No One
OTHER: Todd Eyler, Muddy River News, Steve Demoss, Otis Elevators (Hannah
Jordan & Brent Crozier), David Hochgraber, R. Kent Snider, Terry Bower, Gary Farha,
Mike Barnard, Sid Wilson, and Brian Musholt
6:00 pm meeting was convened.
No bills at this time.
Dave Bellis offers opportunity for public comment. Hannah Jordan (Otis Rep) asked if she
had a space in the agenda to speak. She was assured she would.
Elevator Modernization Phase 2 bid discussion and possible action. Dave Bellis
apologized for taking it to committee before he should have. Bid has been received from
Otis and Mike Barnard has an issue with the bid because the specs quote is for proprietary
equipment. Brian Musholt was invited to speak his opinion and educate the committee on
how this will work with using proprietary equipment. Mr. Musholt is a manufacturer and
has working relationships with both Barnard and Otis and therefore will not be giving his
opinion on either company or advising which way the board should go. Gary clarifies that
Brian is president of Hollister Whitney Elevator Company and he’s come to speak on
having all 6 elevators proprietary. Brian has no interests in this as a manufacturer but is
able to provide perspective on the specs as written. Committee is reassured that Brian
Musholt is not there to push for one side or other but to educate on how this will work
based on the elevator specs provided. Mr. Musholt states that most specs he sees are
non-proprietary equipment which allows more companies to bid on the maintenance or
repairs. Proprietary equipment is owned by the company installing it and can only be
worked on or accessed by the company that owns said equipment. For example, if
Hollister Whitney’s sister company sold a controller as a proprietary controller and the
board were to go bad you could not sell that board to another company besides the
company that provided it. Example was experienced with Tissum they had a rope that
was only accessible to Tissum companies therefore anyone else working on the
equipment did not have access to this particular rope besides the Tissum company. This
makes other companies unable to service or replace any of the equipment placing a “box”
around who is able to come repair, replace, or change anything with it because they are
bound to the particular company that installed it. Ryan Hinkamper needs reminded in
previous board meeting what the recommendation of the full board was. Mr. Hinkamper
got the feeling the board was wanting a new bid with non-proprietary equipment. It was
agreed on that the Transportation Building & Technology committee was to get more
information before taking it back to the board. Board wants everyone on the same page
either way they decide. Dave Bellis questions Mr. Barnard about the broken elevator that
has been broken for a couple years. He asks if this is still under service agreement. Mr.
Page 1 of 5Barnard states that it is still under service agreement and is still broken. He’s unable to
fix it and Otis was unable to fix it as well. Mr. Barnard stated the technology is outdated.
They referred to a previous meeting where it was stated a “magic box” that could be used
could say what was wrong with the elevator so they would be able to fix the issue and it
did not work. Otis rep Hannah Jordan clarifies that Mr. Barnard does in fact have this box
and he states that he does but this particular equipment is outdated and this box did not
come back with anything. The system is obsolete agreed upon by Mike Barnard and Otis
Reps and needs to be modernized. Mr. Barnard is asked how long he has been servicing
the courthouse elevators. He stated he couldn’t tell him exactly how long he had been
doing so nor what he has been paid over the years but said the service contract included
basic services, maintenance and repair. Mr. Barnard stated the County went against his
advice a few years ago when they went from servicing monthly to quarterly. Mr. Barnard
stated that he had cautioned the board against this at the time as it would hurt the lifespan
of the equipment. The budget won in the end and the services were cut to quarterly
instead of monthly. They figured out the estimated cost of what they’ve been spending
yearly has been roughly $7200.00. Mr. Hinkamper asked Brian Musholt if he had a rough
estimate of what he would expect 6 elevators maintenance to cost. Because Mr. Musholt
is on the manufacturer side of things and not the servicing, he did not have an estimate
on what it should cost. Gary Farha clarified by asking if it would be less costly to keep all
6 elevators with the same company. Mr. Musholt did state he believed common
equipment would be less challenging to work on if the company installed all 6 elevators
as they would have the replaceable equipment in stock for all. Dave Bellis asks Otis Rep
if they stock parts locally and recognizes that Otis has already done the 3 elevators in the
new jail. Otis stocks the most common parts and has plenty of installers within their crew
locally that can provide maintenance to these elevators. Maintenance is based more on
a usage system. For every time the relay toggles 1 million times it goes from a 20%
chance of failing to a 70% chance. So prior to the relay failing it’s replaced. Barnard
carries common parts (all the buttons, PLC, MLB) The difference between the new
elevators and the ones on old building side are the ones in new building area are hydraulic
elevators not traction. Barnard states they have multiple in stock parts and what’s not on
hand it can be overnighted. Otis says there will be two crews working on two elevators
from start to finish. Ryan Hinkamper asks if it can be fixed after the agreement why
couldn’t it be fixed before? Otis answered that it’s because it will be modernized not fixed
as is. The ultimate problem with the elevator is the trifactor and the alcove is too wide.
Hannah from Otis states that they are a local elevator company. They pay Adams County
taxes, located on Maine Street in Quincy, have serviced Blessing Hospital for over 50
years, the commitment to this area is proven by the dedication to having a 40 hour
mechanic based out of Quincy with living requirements being no more than 30 minutes
outside of Quincy, Illinois. In addition, they support local and are a member of the chamber
of commerce, and they purchase from local vendors such as Fairfield Inn and Hollister
Whitney. Four main points need to be taken into consideration: 1-Steel prices are
increasing they are up 75% from last year not locking in pricing now will result in a price
increase for this project. Prices are locked in for 30 days from last Tuesday (July 13th) so
it’s still within the window currently; 2-state fire marshall has issued a statement regarding
changes to Illinois state code for elevator they are changing to A17-1-2019 this goes into
effect for any project that is bid after 6-1-2021. The original bid is dated for 5-5-2021
putting this bid in the window before these changes are to go into effect. This needs to be
considered because of the costs of the additional items needed for compliance under new
code. Communication will require video and screens as well as fire requirements such as
sprinkler systems and smoke detectors; 3-Otis has committed the laborers needed to
complete this project quickly with accessibility and flow of the building kept in mind. This
Page 2 of 5is one of the main topics brought up originally with their bid. Otis was the only bid therefore
they assumed they had the project and they began discussing their plans for scheduling
and how things would work best for the county and committed two of their crews. This is
a big commitment as there are a lot of companies currently receiving grant money like
this at this time so it was a big commitment for the company to put two crews together to
work on this project. 4-There are 4 proprietary vendors that normally bid in Quincy three
of them were listed on the bids specification so it can be assumed that the architects
therefore sent it to those companies for bidding. It’s not clear why they did not bid but it
could be they are busy with the extra workload coming in or maybe they didn’t have a
crew locally that they could send easily. But Otis submitted a very competitive reasonable
bid based on specifications made by a third party architect. In Otis opinion it is an unfair
bidding practice to expose prices to their competition to allow other bidders to submit their
pricing after. Hannah questions why Barnard did not submit a bid for the project? She
puts state and local government bids on a regular basis. If she’s unable to bid the specs,
she always submits a price with clarification specifying why the specs should be changed
in her opinion. She stated that if she had been in Barnard’s position she would have
attended the bid meeting, submitted a number for her best project so the county could not
only compare pricing but also difference in specs fairly. Rather than showing up after bid
pricing has already been exposed. She thanks the committee for allowing her time to
speak but expresses that she wished she was able to have this conversation with the
entire board the previous week.
Dave Bellis reads from an email that wasn’t sent to everyone from HOK regarding the bid
for the new jail. It said substitute request sent by Mike Barnard from Barnard Elevators.
The substitute request was reviewed and rejected. His equipment was not recommended
as his company was not familiar to the HOK. Graventa was recommended as the
wheelchair lift manufacturer. The reason Barnard’s request was denied is HOK was
unsure of the equipment Barnard uses, company reputation and they did not want to
stand behind a company that they did not know. John Brady asked if this was sent by
HOK which is confirmed by Dave Bellis. The bid mentioned was from June 2017.
Mike Barnard requested the chance to rebuttal Otis reps statement. Mike Barnard claims
Barnard is a local company. He claims that Otis has not serviced Blessing Hospital for 50
years because Wagner Elevator serviced them before they closed. Dave Bellis advises
against debating dates Mr. Barnard states that they are dredging up all kinds of things
from the past. Dave Bellis apologizes. Barnard continues that the 2019 codes major
changes only apply to those elevators that are over 60 feet of trek according to the state.
So it’s not a major consideration to the elevators within the courthouse. Ryan Hinkamper
asks Mr. Barnard if he remembers the email that Dave Bellis is speaking about from the
HOK. Mr. Barnard states he recalls the email from back when the new jail was being
planned. Ryan Hinkamper attempts to clarify by asking Barnard why there were parts that
were substituted. Mike Barnard stated that those specific parts/equipment are proprietary
and not available to his company. Mr. Barnard stated that HOK was an out of town firm
chosen by the board therefore they did not recognize his business. The HOK was offered
several references from Barnard but they did not accept them. The Board did not force
the issue and Barnard was not low bid on the jail project but he believes he’s being treated
unfairly this time as he was the one that presented the low bid on the courthouse project.
He says he provided the legal lowest bid right on the specs. Gary Farha stopped him
asking if that matter had been settled through Barnard’s attorney and that he had been
provided with adequate regress and therefore it didn’t need to be brought up into the
current discussion. Mr. Barnard believed that the other side of the agreement was not
held up which is why he brought it up. Joe Zanger stated that he was glad it was brought
up as before hearing this he believed Mike Barnard reached out because he was wanting
Page 3 of 5to stand up for the county and citizens. After hearing through litigation Barnard was
awarded a settlement which costed the taxpayers money. It’s kind of contradictory and
leaves Mr. Zanger a little twisted and disappointed. Gary clarifies that it should not be
taken into consideration as there was no litigation and that it was amicable no lawsuit was
filed. Joe Zanger responded he does a lot of bidding himself and does not expect
payment for the amount of time he puts into the bidding process if he’s not the successful
bidder. Mike Barnard stated that his thought process was putting a considerable amount
of time, being lowest bidder, and bidding on the specs as written to a public entity he
didn’t feel the laws were followed properly as he was the lowest responsible bidder. Mike
Barnard feels he was treated unfairly and didn’t feel he had a bridge to burn since it’s
currently burnt unless he could change minds of the current committee meeting. Dave
Bellis was under the assumption that Barnard was the lowest on the alternative bid and
Mike Barnard stated that he was actually lowest on main bid not the alternative bid.
Hannah from Otis brought a print out of the new elevator codes which was given to the
committee. She claims the state officials they have spoken with don’t know exactly what
will be put into place but it is a nationally recognized code change. She repeats being a
local company and recognizes Barnard as a smaller local company. Hannah asks Mr.
Barnard why he didn’t request to have an alternate bid from the architect if he had wanted
to be considered from the start. Mr. Barnard he had discussed it with some of the
members of the board and that it wasn’t really worth while. Dave Bellis asked which
member and Mr. Barnard did not give out a name stating that if they wanted to they could
come forward. He doesn’t feel he was given the opportunity to turn an alternate bid in. He
says the original meeting was unfair and continues it was all outlined in the letters sent to
the committee and he doesn’t care to rehash it now.
Gary Farha asked the chairman to allow his first assistant (Todd Eyler) to speak about
the status of the law regarding local bidders. Two things to speak on regarding the law
where any of this is concerned. Just because you are a “low bidder” does not mean the
county has to go with that quote there are other factors that are in addition that have to
be considered it is not automatic. And also if a sole reason an award is made is to keep
the money within the county that can be viewed as “favortism.” That could be viewed as
prejudicial and improper.
Joe Zanger asks if Otis offers any warranty on their products. Hannah answers 12 months
for parts and labor from the turnover date. Mike Barnard states Barnard also has a 12
month warranty for parts and labor and is included in the pricing.
Gary Farha asks Otis and Barnard what the advantages or disadvantages are to going
with proprietary equipment. Otis says the advantage of proprietary equipment is that there
are 300 roll engineers that are reachable across the country to help the mechanics by
phone when there is an issue with the elevator. They have the ability to troubleshoot with
an engineer by phone. The technology that goes into it. Otis does business in multiple
countries so this particular core the GCS controller is being used in over 200 different
countries. The amount of technology that goes into that and the amount of reliability and
problems they are seeing if there is any issues they are able to patch it. Hannah continues
that Otis is an established company for over 100 years. The other non proprietary
companies are newer. Because of Otis being in business for so many years they have
made some of their own parts or equipment and they continue to maintain those parts as
they are familiar with them. The non proprietary companies you don’t know when these
companies will go out of business and be unable to maintain their equipment and
therefore it is not as reliable. Mike Barnard counters by saying the difference with non
proprietary is not so much in the hardware as it is in the software and the tech support.
They will sell their equipment and provide tech support to any elevator company. If
Barnard were to install the elevators any elevator company would have access to the
Page 4 of 5parts and tech support for every elevator they sell. Mr. Barnard does admit that business
can get bought out. There was a problem with the elevator at the Microtel (originally
purchased from Otis) it didn’t go in quite the way it was supposed to so they attempted to
call Otis support and they stated they could not help. If it had been a non proprietary
company it would have been accessible to any elevator company. It Otis were to work on
a Barnard elevator they would find it just as easy to reach the support they needed.
Terry Bower asks if the state is requesting the courthouse to add on a sprinkler system
referring to the state code brought up by Hannah from Otis. Dave Bellis agreed with Terry
that it would be a significant cost added to the project. Mike Barnard states that he doesn’t
believe it’s part of the code, Hannah stated that’s what the state code says, Dave Bellis
says he doesn’t believe it’s in there but Ryan Hinkamper says he doesn’t feel comfortable
voting on a guess and requests that they circle back around next week in another special
meeting giving time to find out if the state codes are going to require the sprinkler system.
The amount of time before the bid from Otis is no longer locked in came into question but
were told 30 days from last Tuesday (July 13th) is the cut off. Gary Farha states that at
the moment there is only one bid and it’s just a question of accepting the bid or rejecting
it at some point before it runs out. Otis rep states that they fairly submitted their bid and
were the only ones to turn in the bid so the question by Otis is why they are being made
out to be the bad guys.
Dave Bellis asks if it’s to our advantage to have the 6 elevators all being serviced by the
same company or having two different companies. Gary Farha recalled that Brian Musholt
had answered it would be an advantage in maintenance to keep all 6 with one company.
Les Post believes that if we start with one we need to finish with that one. That was his
understanding. Ryan Hinkamper stated the bidding process began and the timeline got
messed up with the different quotes asking for proprietary or non proprietary equipment
and they only ended up with one bid. Also it was brought up that when this idea first came
about the committee wasn’t even for sure the ARPA funds could be used for this until Bell
Weather stated the money would be available for the elevators. Dave Bellis stated that
the current elevator is now on a bandaid and if it should stop running it will mean that
anyone coming in will have to go straight through the Circuit Clerk’s office to get to the
other public elevator.
Joe Zanger makes a motion to accept the bid from Otis elevator. Dave Bellis seconded.
All five members are in agreement with accepting the bid from Otis. But Gary Farha stated
only two aye’s were audible so Caitlin Hickerson was called on to perform a roll call vote.
Les Post-yes
Joe Zanger-yes
Dave Bellis-yes
John Brady-yes
Ryan Hinkamper-yes
R.Kent Snider calls for a special board meeting next Tuesday (7-27)
Joe Zanger motions to adjourn the meeting at 6:49 pm. Seconded by John Brady. Meeting
is adjourned.
End of Minutes
Page 5 of 5You can also read
