City of Cambridge, MA – Bid for Reprographics Services – December 2010

We recently shared with our blog-site visitors the “bid document” issued by the City of St Pete, FL for “reprographics services”, and, several days later, we posted the “bid results.” (In other words, there were two separate articles on our blog-site about that bid. Also, we posted the documents in Google Docs so that anyone who wanted to look at the bid document and the bid results could do so.)

This morning, I came across another fairly recent government agency bid for reprographics services. This one was issued by the City of Cambridge, MA; this bid competition was held in December 2010.

I guess I was wrong to criticize the City of St Pete FL for issuing a bid document that listed services that have long been obsolete! Evidently, the City of Cambridge MA is just as “behind the times” as the City of St Pete FL.

Below, you will find links that you can click on to access the bid document and the bid results. But, before you do that, just a couple of comments about the services the City of Cambridge MA listed in its bid document for reprographics services:

Well, well, well … the City of Cambridge MA bid calls for a few “older” services. When’s the last time that your company got an order for “wash-off” mylars? How often does your company get orders for plots on “vellum”, instead of just “bond” prints?

· Photographic mylar w/wash off emulsion

· Diazo Blackline Prints

· Large Format Printer, Vellum, Large format prints

The City of Cambridge MA bid requires bidders to price this line item with only one unit price, ignoring the difference between “bond” and “vellum”.

· Output from electronic Macintosh file to bond/vellum Lg. format max. width dimension 36"

And, look at the difference here, in terms of “unit of measure”. For “photocopying” large-format b/w bond, the unit of measure is “per print”, but for digital printing b/w bond, the unit of measure is “per sq ft.” I wonder if the City’s purchasing department knows anything about the services listed in the bid.

· Photocopying plain paper 30 x 36

· recycled paper (bidders to bid “per print”)

· Photocopying plain paper 30 x42

· recycled paper (bidders to bid “per print”)

· Large Format Printer, Bond, Large format prints

· recycled paper (bidders to bid “per sq ft”)

Here’s a link to the bid document:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B81al4kFAU9JOTEwM2NlN2ItZGI0Yy00ZGNlLTlkN2MtNTk2OWE5ZmE0ZjJm&hl=en&authkey=CM6WrtcP

And, here’s a link to the bid results. Unfortunately, the City did not post a “detailed line item” abstract of the bids; the City only posted “total bids.” Curious as to why there were only 3 bidders. Note that one of the bidders was disqualified because it did not bid on all line items. (Sarcastically speaking, I wonder why that was?)

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0As1al4kFAU9JdElEbzJBSDhzNjF3c2JlWUU0WWVuWmc&hl=en&authkey=CLKhg_oP

Maybe “someday”, the IRgA will develop a standard suggested format for Government Agencies to use for bids and RFP’s for reprographics services? Wishful thinking?