HomeMy WebLinkAboutENG 12-15 Citq o�1 ::
Report to
PICKERING Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 12-15
Date: July 6, 2015
•
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering & Public Works
Subject: Consultant Selection for the Engineering Design of the Pine Creek
Stormwater Management Facility and Outfall Channel Restoration
File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Report ENG 12-15 of the Director, Engineering & Public Works regarding the
Consultant Selection for the Engineering Design of the Pine Creek Stormwater
Management Facility and Outfall Channel Restoration be received;
2. That the proposal No. RFP-3-2015 submitted by Aquafor Beech Ltd, to undertake
the Engineering Design for the Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and
Outfall Channel Restoration in the amount of$70,648.00 (HST included) be
accepted;
3. That the total gross project cost of$106,247.00 (HST included), including the RFP
amount, TRCA fees and associated costs, and the total net project cost of
$95,679.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved;
4. That Council authorize the Division Head, Finance &Treasurer to finance the total
net project cost of$95,679.00 as follows:
• a) The sum of $63,786.00 to be funded from Other Revenue York Region-SEC
Enhancements;
b) The sum of$25,833.00 to be funded from the Development Charges-City's
Share Reserve;
c) The sum of $6,060.00 to be funded from the Development Charges (DC)-
Stormwater Management Reserve Fund; and
5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take necessary
action to give effect thereto.
89
•
ENG 12-15 July 6, 2015
Subject: Consultant Selection for the Engineering Design of the
Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and
Outfall Channel Restoration Page 2
Executive Summary: The scope of work for the Engineering Design of the Pine
Creek Stormwater Management Facility and Outfall Channel Restoration includes
fulfilling all of the requirements for Schedule B undertakings as per the Municipal Class
EA process and to prepare engineering designs and construction drawings for the
stormwater management facility, restoration of the outfall channel and restoration of the
channel located upstream of the culvert at Kitley Avenue.
RFP-3-2015 was issued on March 3, 2015 and closed on April 7, 2015. The Evaluation
Committee reviewed and evaluated the 10 proposals received using criteria outlined in
the RFP.
It is recommended by the Evaluation Committee that Aquafor Beech Limited be retained
to undertake the Engineering Design of the Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility
and Outfall Channel Restoration at a cost of$70,648.00 (HST included).
In accordance with Section 10.04 of the Purchasing Policy, where the project cost of a
consulting assignment is more than $50,000, the award is subject to the approval of
Council.
Financial Implications:
1. Request for Proposal Amount
RFP-3-2015 $ 62,520.00
HST (13%) 8,128.00
Total $70,648.00
2. Estimated Project Costing Summary
RFP-3-2015 — Proposal for the Engineering Design of the Pine
Creek Stormwater Management Facility and Outfall Channel
Restoration $62,520.00
Associated Costs
TRCA Fees $14,000.00
Miscellaneous Costs 5,000.00
Contingency (20% ) 12,504.00
Sub Total — Costs $94,024.00
HST (13%) 12,223.00
Total Gross Project Costs $106,247.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (10,568.00)
Total Net Project Costs $95,679.00
CORP0227-07101 revised
90
ENG 12-15 July 6, 2015
Subject: Consultant Selection for the Engineering Design of the
Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and
Outfall Channel Restoration Page 3
3. Approved Source of Funds
Account Source of Funds Budget Required
5410.1401.6181 York Region Project— SEC $140,000.00 $63,786.00
Enhancements
5321.1405.6253 Development Charges
City's Share Reserve 56,700.00 25,833.00
DC — Stormwater
Management Reserve Fund 13,300.00 6,060.00
Total: $210,000.00 $95,679.00
Net project costs (over) under approved funds $114,321.00
The 2014 Stormwater Management Capital Budget included $140,000.00 for the
completion of the Municipal Class EA process and the engineering design of the Pine
Creek outfall and channel reconstruction and the 2014 Development Projects (DC
Funded) Capital Budget included $70,000.00 for the completion of the Municipal Class
EA process and the engineering design of the stormwater management facility. Funds
that are unspent for the Municipal Class EA and design components will be available for
the construction components of the project, which are expected to commence in
fall/winter 2016.
The required amount from,each funding source for the Engineering Design and
associated costs component was determined by applying a ratio based on approved
budgets for these two projects. A summary of the funding ratio is as follows:
CORP0227-07!01 revised
91
ENG 12-15 July 6, 2015
Subject: Consultant Selection for the Engineering Design of the
Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and
Outfall Channel Restoration Page 4
4. Funding Ratio
Project Description Project Source of Budget % Cost
Code Funds Approved Allocation Allocation
Amount between between
two two
projects projects
Pine Creek Outfall 5410.1401. Other Revenue
Channel Restoration York Region
SEC 140,000.00 67% 63,786.00
Pine Creek SWM Facility 5321.1405. DC Reserve &
Reserve Fund 70.000.00 33% 31,893.00
Total 210,000.00 100% 95,679.00
Pinecreek
Breakdown on source SWM
of funds for 5321.1405. Facility Funding Ratio Amount
DC City's Share Reserve 81% 25,833.00
DC SWM Reserve Fund 19% 6,060.00
Total Funds from 5321.1405. 100% 31,893.00
Discussion:
Council endorsed the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan.
On April 19, 2010, Council endorsed the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management
Master Plan (Master Plan) and authorized City staff to imple
ment the recommendations of the Master Plan subject to budget and further Council
approval for individual projects (Resolution #72/10). The overall goal of the Master Plan
is as follows:
"To address long-standing concerns regarding the ongoing decline in the
quality of the Frenchman's Bay ecosystem by seeking means to control the
quantity and quality of storm runoff entering the local creeks and the Bay itself."
The recommended Master Plan consists of a suite of projects, programs and policies
designed to address issues related to flooding, erosion and poor water quality in
CORP0227-07/01 revised
92
ENG 12-15 July 6, 2015
Subject: Consultant Selection for the Engineering Design of the
Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and
Outfall Channel Restoration Page 5
Frenchman's Bay and its' tributary watersheds. The Master Plan addressed Phases 1
and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process and more detailed investigations are required
at the project-specific level in order to fulfill the Municipal Class EA documentation
requirements for the specific Schedule B and C projects identified within the Master
Plan.
The Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and Outfall Channel Restoration were
both identified as projects in the Master Plan. The Mountcastle Crescent tributary of
Pine Creek, located within Forestbrook Park, is not a natural watercourse but a 200 m •
outfall channel that connects the storm sewer outfall to Pine Creek (refer to the Location
Map in Attachment#1). The Master Plan noted that restoration of this channel was
required as the uncontrolled flows from the storm sewer outfall have caused severe
erosion such that the outfall channel has downcut approximately two metres below the
apron of the headwall putting it at risk of collapse:In addition, the severe and extensive
erosion has undermined the channel banks, making them unstable resulting in a large
number of fallen trees. The Master Plan had also.identified that a stormwater
management facility was suitable for this location to help attenuate the flows prior to
release into the outfall channel.
•
The Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and Outfall Channel Restoration will
be completed as a Schedule B project as it consists of a stormwater management
facility and erosion control works on the downstream outfall channel. As such, Schedule
B projects have to fulfill the documentation requirements for the Municipal Class EA and
require the filing of a Project File Report.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Consulting Services for the Pine Creek
q P
Stormwater Management Facility and Outfall Channel Restoration was issued
RFP-3-2015 was issued on March 3, 2015 to submit a proposal to undertake the
Engineering Design of the Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and Outfall
Channel Restoration. The RFP process was closed on April 7, 2015, with 10 proposals
submitted.
Aquafor Beech Limited is recommended for selection
The Evaluation Committee, consisting of members from the Engineering & Public Works
Department, evaluated the 10 proposals that were received using the criteria outlined in
the RFP.
The City received submissions from the following 10 consulting firms:
• Aquafor Beech Limited
• Amec Foster Wheeler Environmental & Infrastructure
• Candevcon Limited
• Conestoga Rovers &Associates
CORP0227-07/01 revised
93
ENG 12-15 July 6, 2015
Subject: Consultant Selection for the Engineering Design of the
Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and
Outfall Channel Restoration Page 6
• Eco System Recovery Incorporated
• Golder Associates •
•
• Greer Galloway Consulting Engineers
• Morrison Hershfield
• MMM Group Limited
• The Municipal Infrastructure Group Limited
The consultant that received the highest average score (Attachment#2) and best met
the City's needs in completing the Engineering Design of the Pine Creek Stormwater
Management and Outfall Channel Restoration, considering their team's strengths and
previous experience relative to the required work, was Aquafor Beech Limited.
The Health & Safety Policy, a current WSIB Workplace Injury Summary Report and
Certificate of Clearance issued by the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board have been
reviewed and deemed acceptable. The Certificate of Insurance has been reviewed by
the Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit, and is deemed acceptable.
Aquafor Beech is a leading civil engineering firm with significant expertise in completing
stormwater and channel restoration projects under both the Municipal Class EA process
as wells as the Conservation Ontario process. Through those experiences, Aquafor
Beech recognize the environmental and social complexities involved in such projects
and the importance of providing a long-term solution to protect surrounding urban areas
and infrastructure. Recent examples of such projects include the Amberlea Creek
Erosion Control EA in the City of Pickering, the Don River and Humber River Stream
Restoration Class EA in the City of Toronto and the Credit River Erosion Control and
Slope Stabilization in the City of Mississauga.
It is recommended that Aquafor Beech Limited be retained to undertake the Engineering
Design of the Pine Creek Stormwater Facility and Outfall Channel Restoration for
$70,648.00 (HST included). It is also recommended that a net project cost of
$95,679.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Supply & Services Memorandum dated June 4; 2015
3. RFP-3-2015 Stage I — Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements
4. RFP-3-2015 Stage II — Evaluation Rated Criteria
CORP0227-07/01 revised
94
ENG 12-15 July 6, 2015
Subject: Consultant Selection for the Engineering Design of the
Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and
Outfall Channel Restoration Page 7
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Marilee Gadzovski, M.Sc.(Eng.), P.Eng. Ricly rd Holborn, P.Eng.
Division Head, Dir, ctor, Engineering & Public Works
Water esources & Development Services
Vera A. Felgemacher Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA
CSCMP, CPPO, CPPB, CPM, CMM Ill Division Head, Finance & Treasurer
Manager, Supply & Services
RH/MG:Ir
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
g9i6e44;P
Zz r Zo/3
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
•
CORP0227-07/01 revised
•
95
ATTACHMENT#�_TO REPORT#. EN 1 to✓ 1
- _-- : �.Lof _
tip- �-.--�-,0 ► ---00.i.vv-:1-,,, 0
.,, ,-:!::,i-Ju mpir 70- T.P.-,,..:• 000,.,.. to 0 ww-010010001"00
' * g0 1 t ti 3
\ 00 00 --t,k
•
\-\ \ ,.,', 0
a ` Y 00.IP t IV ' 0 .\•,:'', \ cr'l
cos�
NI ,, ' , \ ,
wi••• 0.• \ sa,A ‘.---,
. w,„,„. ',..\,.. 0,-,,, \ •,,i,
�PROPOSED �
:r
t
I OUTFALL CHANNEL '1/ � ,•
N. I i i t RESTORATION t liall
;
\ till /I 7 � V
\ . t i , " I ! ,
W , . j
l l 1 i l r I l,l ' ! le
\\ilitli ltiiliilil /. /
tlliriitr[ 1 ; A;`i►
li,
■ , /'
, • 1iil 11 .f 1; . >
• � 1 , 1 .111111 • 00 4. )‘,. l ,.,
11141 U, i Li Oil ki_td111
► 11111 11111 1 ,\ I W' I
V. ! -'.-
I ± I ! I ! i Ii / PROPOSED
STORMWATER
\ .\ I NNW ��1!..I ,-,i? MANAGEMENT ;a .``
y ''L.`:5Lj FACILITY ' a; �; . \
.
J.
v
,,0'71, ,. , „,•,/► �„0 i,, I:t� ►!/� . r►\ fi '' ��r
Alp,Ji0A170-1 ----"I WI- AO-1 .
41144:00vAiiiir ‘ Ali!orollarr �
S. , , t
kr,,,,Al W \jog 41110AA, ” --_.\01'-' 1, wit\ i ' ler Nu 00.
(--'-,=,Trialtun #'-•0444, .42 ....___` , \ \
1010 Or Irl. .0
fig
1111IVIIP'11111011AMMMI 1 1111 i III MA-.all.- ■1111M1171 II-. 11111 IAA ill
ENGINEERING&PUBLIC ATTACHMENT FOR ENGINEERING &PUBLIC WORKS `mil°T
WORKS DEPARTMENT REPORT ENG 12-15 -- .:•,,.. '1 =''=
mJi F N.T.S. JUNE 18/2015 • PINE OUTFALL CHANNEL RESTORATION PROJECT and ti co h•�y ti'61 j
06 �f
•
ATTACHMENT#2 TOREPORT#
•
4-4 x •
imaliN Memo .
•
To: Richard Holbom • • June 4, 2015
Director,'Engineering & Public Works
From: Vera A.•Felgemacher
Manager, Supply & Services •
Copy: Supervisor, Supply & Services .
Division Head,Water Resources & Development Services
• Water Resources Engineer
•
Subject: Request for Proposal No. RFP-3-2015 •
Engineering Design of Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and Outfall Channel
Restoration .
• Closing: Tuesday, April 7, 2015. •
File: F-5300-001 •
Terms of Reference for the above project were released on March 3, 2015. An advertisement.
was posted on the City's website. Ten submissions were received by the closing date and time.
All submissions contained the•mandatory requirements for Stage i Evaluation has been
undertaken by Supply& Services. In accordance with Terris of Reference Item 3.3.6, the
proposals satisfying the mandatory requirements before the Rectification Date proceeded to .
Stage II are:
Aquafor Beech Ltd. •
Amec Foster Wheeler Environmental & Infrastructure
• Candevcon-Ltd. •
Conestoga-Rovers &Associates •
Ecosystem Recovery Inc.
Golder Associates
Greer Galloway Consulting Engineers •
Morrison Hershfield •
MMM Group
• The Municipal infrastructure Group Ltd. •
Stage II Evaluation has been undertaken by 2 staff members from Engineering & Public Works,
Employment & Compensation Specialist and the Manager, Budgets and Internal Audit who
•• conducted independent evaluations.of the 10 proposals for their respective sections. An
Evaluation Committee meeting was held on Friday, May 15, 2015 and a combined average score
for each proposal was completed and a copy is attached. •
97
ATTACHMENT# 2 TOREPORT# VC��
•
Stage Ill Evaluation consisted of Supply'&Services scoring the price of the 10 proposals and each
was added to the Evaluation Committee consensus scores and a copy is attached.
• Aquafor Beech Ltd. is the highest scoring proponent with a total upset limit of$70,648.00 HST
included for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project. •
In accordance with the.Purchasing Policy 10.04, where the project or annual cost of a consulting
or professional service assignment is expected to be more than $30,000 the Manager shall obtain
• written proposals in accordance with procedures set out in Section 06 and: (b) An award over
$50,000 is subject to"the additional approval of Council.
• Please do not disclose unit or total prices to any enquiries. Respondents will be advised of the .
outcome in due course and all enquiries can be directed to Supply & Services.
If ou require further information, please feel free to contact me, or a member of Supply&
Se ices.
•
VAF/rr
Attachment
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
1 •
•
•
June 4, 2015 . " Page 2 .
Request for Proposal No. RFP-3-2015 •
98 • .
ATTACHMENT# 3 .TO REPORT# &67 1.2—t S
Engineering Design of Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and Outfall •
Channel Restoration
•
RFP-3-2015
Stage 1 —Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements
Stage I will consist of a review to determine which proposals satisfy all of the mandatory
submission requirements. Proposals failing to satisfy the mandatory requirements as of
the submission date will be provided an opportunity to rectify any.deficiencies.
Proposals failing to satisfy the mandatory requirements as of the rectification date will
be excluded from further consideration. Those submissions that satisfy the mandatory
requirements will proceed to Stage II.
Proposals are to include the following mandatory requirements:
A. Submission Form (Appendix B);
B. Addendum No. 1 Acknowledged;
C. Rate Form
D. Reference Form
•
Company Item Item Item Item
A B . C D
Amec Foster Wheeler .
Aquafor Beech Ltd.
•
Candevcon Ltd: .
Conestoga-Rovers &
Associates
Ecosystem Recovery Inc. •
•
Golder Associates
Greer.Galloway Group Inc.
MMM Group Ltd. .
•
99
ATTACHMENT# _TO REPORT# / ' -
E n g i n e e r i n g Design of Pine C ee e r Management Facility and Outfall
Channel Restoration
RFP-3-2015
Stage 1 — Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements
Morrison Hershfield Ltd.
Municipal Infrastructure
Group Ltd.
•
•
•
10.0
ATTACHMENT#. _To REEQRT#, cNt-1 12--15�
�_of 4
RFP-3-2015
Engineering Design of Pine Creek Stormwater Management Facility and Outfall Channel
Restoration
Stage II - Evaluation Rated Criteria
Stage II will consist of a scoring by the City of each qualified proposal on the basis of the rated
criteria.
The following is an overview of the categories and weighting for the rated criteria of the RFP.
Proponents who do not meet a minimum threshold score for a category will not proceed to Stage Ill of
the evaluation process.
Rated Criteria:Category Weighting (Points)
Experience on Similar Projects and 20
Qualifications
Understanding of Project 15
Work Plan and Deliverables 15
Project Team Overview 15
Quality of References 10
Quality of Proposal 5
Insurance, Health & Safety Documentation 5
Pricing 15
Total Points 100
Experience and Qualifications = 20 Points
The proposal shall include information that provides:
a. three (3) relevant examples of past projects within the last five (5) years that are comparable
in scope. This should include a project synopsis that identifies the team members assembled
who worked on the project, the current project status, budgeted costs versus actual costs,
scheduling issues and resolutions, and design challenges, efficiencies. Provide client names,
contacts and up-to-date contact phone numbers. Advise the references that the City may be
contacting them; and
b. Storm water outfall/channel design and project experience.
Understanding of Project= 15 Points
The proposal shall include information that provides:
c. Information that the Proponent understands the objectives and requirements of this project.
Proponents should relate these objectives to past experience or expertise of the Proponent
and/or their team; and
d. A summary of the risks, problems or issues associated with the work and how they will be
mitigated.
Work Plan and Deliverables-Total Points = 15 Points
a. A detailed timetable indicating when the Proponent can commence the work;
b. A detailed work plan indicating the method, tasks, deliverables;
1.01
ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# ENiel 19-16-
4;
c. A schedule that identifies work phases (by Gantt Chart or other similar illustration) including
key dates for major deliverables (design development, working drawings, tender specifications,
tendering, construction administration and post construction in the Proponent's detailed work
plan;
d. Proposed staffing roles and the amount of time that they will be dedicated to this project; and
e. State the assumptions regarding the roles and involvement of the City staff.
Project Team Overview= 15 points
a. Identify the prime firm submitting the Proposal and the sub-consultant firms that will be
assembled to undertake the work.
b. The name, title, mailing address, phone number, fax number and e-mail of the Design Project
Leader;
c. Condensed resumes and professional credentials of each individual on the Project Team that
highlights their education, training, and work history;
d. The respective roles of the team members and their current office locations. Team members
named in this RFP cannot be replaced without prior written approval from the City;
e. Current and future project list that will be undertaken by members of the Proponent's team
including their current workload (i.e., identify other competing priorities that are assigned to
each member within this project timeline); and
f. Organizational chart that clearly defines the chain of command for each individual with the
team
Quality of References = 10 Points
Relevance of projects similar in scope and value completed over the last five (5) years. Complete
Appendix D— Reference Form
•
Quality of Proposal = 5 points
Presentation of proposal, examples, details, content organization and how well instructions are
followed.
Insurance, Health & Safety Documentation = 5 Points
All documentation and certificates stated in Item D, Other Mandatory Requirements, being current
and valid.
•
•
102
ATTACHMENT# LI TO REPORT# (7 o-/)
®�.of
Pricing —Total Points = 15 points
Pricing will be scored based on a relative pricing formula using the Rates set out in the Rate Bid
Form.
Each proponent will receive a percentage of the total possible points allocated to price for the
particular category it has bid on by dividing that proponent's price for that category into the lowest bid
price in that category. For example, if a proponent bids $120.00 for a particular category and that is
the lowest bid price in that category, that proponent receives 100% of the possible points for that
category (120/120 = 100%). A proponent who bids $150.00 receives 80% of the possible points for
that category (120/150 = 80%), and a proponent who bids $240.00 receives 50% of the possible
points for that category(120/240 = 50%).
- Lowest rate
x Total available points= Score for proposal with second-lowest rate
Second-lowest rate
Lowest rate
X Total available points = Score for proposal with third-lowest rate
Third-lowest rate
And so on, for each proposal.
•
•
103
•
r;�� c M ENT#.—...q.—TOREF0RT# �►�th /c2—1.5-
•
O
�:•
•V
>•.C a
ai m a5 u) o
C� c CAS f
•
i
C 2 c.6 N 'O S 3
0 7,•E a 1 c
w N
•
i c N.0 ,0 0 i
N IO
C CM
a•
v *,t'
•
.c al o a •
a p N• Q y N ` f 2 '5 .0 C z .'a ,
'0 E 5. V^,
•LL .
' L
N a) l°!`
UI .W F_' 1 D
U. m �,�•cd a
N. N '`x, u
y C.0 E f, i, ^r
o
O N r '. il
ra
CD
CD C C 'O U = A (�
w.. C N
iii
O N O hiE+a.
I co ; . i
S
•
F ,;•
d N'a C • y SS
C 0 O 4„;[,,4,-,,,;?
CD a`) c G h'„.-
•
CY
y. E•
m
•
Z
co
C C C
C _
a 'O d
C a
0
. o Q
d a)
E
• m :
. m
••
E•
E
o•
104 . .