05021956 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f? SAN MARCOS FIRE DEPARTMENT ~,,: ""DeeM. 1t# '3fI-U" April 25, 1956 HENRY KYL.E. CHAPLAIN BOYCE: MAGRUOER, SGT.-AT-ARMS MRS. CL,UOE IVE:Y, MDTHER LURLINE TDMBAUI3H. ~UEEN I HUDSON 8AL..ES, PRESIDENT BILL DAVIS, VICE-PRESIDENT ..JACK KERCHEVIL.LE, 5ECY,-TREAB. C. L. HAYNES, CHIEF EUGENE: POSEY, ASST. CHIEF" FRANCIS MERCER, ASST. CHIEF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS Honorable Fr'ank .E. Deitterich, jv]ayor and MeQbers of the City Council City of San Marcos, San Marcos, Texas GentlerJen: At a meeting of t~e citv counc!l ~cld on April 18, 1956, bids on fire fighting equipment were turned over the the San Marcos !lire Department for recommendation to the City Council. Only two bids were turned over to the fire department for consideration, they being the bid of Simms Fire Equipment Company of San Antonio, Texas, in the amount of $22,203.06, and the bid of American Fire Apparatus Company of Battlecreek, Michigan in the amount of $20,500.00. We understand that the bids submitted by the other companies were not lawful bids, and that we were not to consider them. I After having received these bids considerable discussion has been had within the fire department. Two separate sessions of the exec- utive committee have been held, the executive committee consisting of about 15 members of the fire department. A discussion of the bids, pro and con, has been freely had. The executive committee was fully aware that tax payers money was being spent, and that it must be spent wisely. The committee also feels that while the price of the equipment is im- portan t, the qua li ty of the equipment is a Iso important, in tha t ver~r often the purchase price of the equipment is saved on the very first fire the equipment puts out. While the bid of the American Fire Apparatus Company is low by $l703.06, nevertneless we recommend that the city purChase the Simms equipment, and accept the bid of the Simms Fire Equipment Company in the amount of $22,203.06. In view of the fact that we are recommending the council accept other than the loW bid, we feel it is out duty to set out to you our reasons for making this recommendation. These reasons, among others, are as follows: l. The Simms bid met the specifications called for, whereas the American Fire Apparatus Company bid did not. I 2. A large part, in fact nearly all, of the difference in the pr'ice of the Simms equipment and the American equipment is due to the type of pump on the two pieces of equipment. The Simms equipment has a