Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Emergency Equipment Procurement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves sole‑source Lifepak purchase after chief cites maintenance and compatibility needs

3154817 · April 30, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council approved a sole‑source purchase of one Lifepak 15 cardiac monitor and annual maintenance expenditures with Physio‑Control (a Stryker Corporation subsidiary); the chief said compatibility and vendor support make the purchase necessary and that annual costs with the vendor exceed $50,000.

The Lake Havasu City Council on May 28 approved a sole‑source purchase of one Lifepak 15 cardiac monitor and authorized annual expenditures in excess of $50,000 with Physio‑Control Inc., a subsidiary of Stryker Corporation.

Fire Chief (Chief Davis) told the council the Lifepak 15 is the cardiac monitor the department uses and that Physio‑Control is the sole vendor supporting the department's monitored equipment and repairs. "This purchase is for Lifepak 15," the chief said, and explained the department keeps spare units so ambulances have coverage when a unit is damaged or sent for service. He said having "1 spare is an ideal situation for us."

Chief Davis told the council the department currently operates 13 Lifepak units, of which 10 are Lifepak 15 models. He said some older units have reached the end of manufacturer support. The chief discussed efforts to use cooperative purchasing but said the alternative devices did not meet the department's specifications and that Physio‑Control matched the city's specification and support needs.

The purchase amount discussed by staff included $26,760.13 in the presentation. During the meeting the formal motion recorded an amount of $26,750.13; the council approved the sole‑source purchase and the motion carried 6–0.

The item was presented as a sole‑source procurement because of vendor‑specific maintenance and repair dependencies and the service/support arrangement that drives annual expenditures above the $50,000 threshold requiring council approval.