My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2000 08 01
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2000 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2000 08 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:46 PM
Creation date
2/2/2004 11:19:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
8/1/2000
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2000 08 01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />August 1, 2000 <br />Page 4. <br /> <br />Davidson asked how many manufacturers make switches that would meet the City's <br />needs. Pappas stated approximately 7 to 8 manufacturers. <br /> <br />Davidson asked why only two bids were received and asked about the appropriateness of <br />the RFP. Pappas stated that five years ago, similar RFP's for the Cities of Englewood <br />and Thornton received five or six bids. She stated that she was also surprised that <br />Louisville's RFP only received two bids, however she felt that it could be due to the <br />current job market. She stated that there are so many jobs available, telephone system <br />vendors are picking and choosing what they bid on. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that communications is a highly competitive market and suggested going <br />back to the other competitors to inquire why they did not bid. He suggested Council <br />continue this matter to next meeting in order to get feed back from other competitors. <br /> <br />Pappas stated that many of the vendors sell more than one system and will bid the system <br />they consider the best fit for the company. She stressed that it did not mean that one <br />system chose not to bid, but rather the vendor chose not to bid that equipment. <br /> <br />Sisk voiced his concern that there was incongruity in the bids, and asked Pappas if she <br />could offer an explanation for the range. Pappas stated that the range is very common <br />and that Lucent Technologies (originally AT&T) has been traditionally the highest priced <br />bidder, with NEC much more competitive. <br /> <br />Sisk asked if there were comparable systems. Pappas stated that there are comparable <br />systems and that NEC typically comes in under bid. <br /> <br />Sisk asked Pappas if, based on these comparable systems, Shared Technologies' bid was <br />within the realm of what she thought was appropriate, and asked what number she target. <br />Pappas stated that she projected between $240,000 to $400,000. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that he did not believe that a two week delay would hurt the telephone issue. <br /> <br />MOTION: Davidson moved that Council continue this matter to the August 15, 2000 <br />meeting, seconded by Mayer. All in favor. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 43, SERIES 2000 - A RESOLUTION OF SUBSTANTIAL <br />COMPLIANCE, FISCHER FARMS DEVELOPMENT, REQUESTS TO ANNEX <br />7.6 ACRES AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF WALNUT LANE WITH THE <br />ZONING OF SF-LD <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.