Loading...
R-86-856 - 4/24/1986WHEREAS, the City has duly advertised for bids for a Microform Reader Printer for the Library; and WHEREAS, submitted the lowest and best bid; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to accept the bid of , and to authorize the execution of the necessary documents, Now Therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK, TEXAS That the bid of is hereby accepted as the lowest and best bid, and the Mayor is authorized and directed to enter into an agreement with for a Microform Reader Printer for the Library. RESOLVED this 24th day of April, 1986. ATTEST: NE LAND, City Secretary RESOLUTION NO. ,P 5c 2 MIKE ROBINSON, Mayor City of Round Rock, Texas 'BID CHOICES FOR MICROFORM READER - PRINTERS Bid requests for microform reader - printers for the Library and Public Works 'Departments were made available in early March. Firms which were mailed bid specifications included: Fuji, Micron,. Minolta, Canon, Bell and Howell, and 3 -M.' Form Source of Texas picked up a bid specifications sheet. A copy of the bid specifications is attached. Bids were received from Minolta, University Microfilms International, Zytron, and Canon. The competing bids for both Library and Public Works applications were from Minolta and Canon. University Microfilms bid a Minolta RP505 at $11,030 for .Library applications. Zytron bid on an IMTEC 2000 at over $13,800 for Public Works applications. The following description addresses Library applications as the Public Works Department wishes to wait at this point. ' Library Choice Summary: The Canon PC -BO is selected for the following reasons: *dry toner *uses plain, not roll, paper _ *less expensive annual maintenance contract , *has coin -op attachment with change return as an option in the bid *when machines with similar coin -op attachments are compared (change not given), the Canon is $250 less expensive *per item cost (in toner and paper) is considerably less expensive with the Canon _ *there were mixed reviews on both the Canon and Minolta in Library Technology Reports and at the -sites currently using the Canon and Minolta. However, ' the reviews in the Reports on both machines were positive Overall. Although the PC -80 is a new machine, it is the same in the process method as the PC -70, with a - few modifications which were improvements over the PC -70. The competing machine was a Minolta 407E. A more detailed explanation follows. TONER: , Bath use a drumless system, with drums and corona wires existing in the cassettes holding the toner. In the Minolta, a flip of the switch allows a user to get either a positive' or negative print. In the Canon, the cassettes need to be switched out as there are separate cassettes for positive and negative prints. This was the Director's major concern and initial setback in accepting the Canon, but as the library is how developing the microfiche collection, it can try to order the majority of the fiche or film in the same type of print. The Director does not prefer based on experience with a liquid toner photocopier, and reviews point out the problems in settling. In the dry toner system, problems in copy quality occur as toner runs out. A site that had both Minolta 407E and Canon PC -70 prefered the Canon print quality. The PC -80 now has "masking ", in that areas bordering a page may be - masked, and toner not placed in the area, allowing for conservation of . toner. Also, there is concern about evaporation of toner in the liquid system. PLAIN PAPER: The Library "already purchases paper in bulk for its plain paper copiers. Sheet costs are down to $.0057 per page. The Minolta uses a cut sheet - option which may be useful in some cases; but cutting mechanisms do have occasional problems. Paper cost, in best case situations, is over $.05 per page. MAINTENANCE COSTS: The Canon is $400 per whereas the Minolta is $706 per year. _ Canon guarantees an 8 hour turnaround time, Minolta a 24 hour turnaround time. COIN OP..ATTACHMENTS:' Minolta bid on an attachment that allows for variety of coins to be deposited, but does not allow for change. Canon bid on two attachments , one allowing ,for specific limits of coins to be deposited with no change, and another which gives change. The second option is more expensive, but worthwhile as it will eliminate the time staff would have to spend giving change. BOTTOM -LINE COSTS: - If one looks at the machines with coin -op attachments which do' . not give change, the Canon machine is about $250 cheaper. With the prefered coin -op attachment, the machine is $250 more than the Minolta. PER ITEM COST (IN TONER AND PAPER): The per piece cost with Canon' is about $.056, ' whereas Minolta, assuming 8 -1/2" sizes are used and not 14" sized cuts, would result in about $.08 per sheet. As we would not use as much roll paper in relationship to' our present stock`of single sheet paper, we would not realize much of a discount as we would not need to order as much bulk as we presently do for our plain paper copiers.. PC - B0 AS NEW MACHINE:' Although the Director is concerned about ordering a piece of machinery that is new on the market; the 'crucial. part 'of the machine -- the toner /copying aspect -- is unchanged. The changes have included the addition of the film carriage_, to the unit, and the visual display of a page in an up /down position rather than sideways prior to printing (one of the criticisms in the Reports review - of the older PC -70). Also, the film carriage has an automatic loading mechanism, and does not need to be threaded, as in the Minolta. 'The Director feels that overall, the Canon will be best for the City. The funds for this machine were to come out of the Library Development Fund and the City Budget. - However, as there have been mid -year budget cuts, this item has been deleted from the budget, with a motion from the Library Board to fund this equipment out of the Library Development Fund, at less than $8000. ;fatal cost of the machine should not exceed $7573. Maintenance costs have been budgeted in the Library's budget.