HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO 02-03
REPORT TO
COUNCIL
Report Number: CAO 02-03
Date: February 14, 2003
From:
Thomas J. Quinn
Chief Administrative Officer
Subject:
Consultant Selection for Pickering's Growth Management Study
Recommendation:
1.
That Report Number CAO 02-03 concerning the Consultant Selection for
Pickering's Growth Management Study for the Seaton & Agricultural Assembly
Lands be received;
2.
In response to the City's RFP-9-2002, that the Proposal submitted by
Dillon Consulting Limited, in association with Sorenson Gravely Lowes Planning
Associates, Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Leinster, Joseph Bogdan & Associates,
D.R. Poulton & Associates, AgPlan, LaPointe Consulting Inc., Dr. Nick Eyles,
Enid Slack Consulting, and Andre Scheinman, dated January 24, 2003, in the
amount of $497,176.00 including GST be approved;
3.
That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to enter into any
agreements to give effect thereto;
4.
That Council appoint Ward 3 Councillor
Committee of the Growth Management Study; and
to the Steering
5.
That the City Clerk forward for information a copy of Report Number CAD 02-03
to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Region of Durham, and the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and members of the Working Group.
Executive Summary: On December 23, 2002, the City issued a Request For
Proposal (RFP) for a Growth Management Study for the Seaton and Agriculture
Assembly Lands. The RFP included the Terms of Reference, prepared by staff with the
assistance of the Working Group, and modified by Pickering Council on
December 9,2002.
As of the RFP submission deadline of noon January 24, 2003, the City had received 5
proposals from the following multi-disciplinary consulting teams: Dillon et al; Macauley
Shiomi Howson et al; Marshall Macklin Monaghan et al; The Planning Partnership et al; and
Planscape et al.
Report Number CAO 02-03
February 14, 2003
Consultant Selection - Growth Management Study
Page 2
A Selection Committee of senior City staff reviewed all proposals, against criteria
outlined in the RFP. The Committee was impressed by the quality of all proposals.
Nevertheless in short-listing the proposals, the Committee rated the proposals
submitted by the Dillon team, Marshall Macklin Monaghan team, and Macauley Shiomi
Howson team higher than the other two submissions. However, in considering the three
higher rated teams, the Macauley Shiomi Howson proposal had a project cost that was
40% over the City's available funding. Accordingly, that team was not carried forward
for an interview.
The Selection Committee interviewed the Dillon team, and the Marshall Macklin Monaghan
team, and again was very impressed by both teams. Nevertheless, in evaluating the two
teams, the Committee ranked the Dillon team higher with respect to the following:
.
the experience of the team;
their understanding of the Pickering context and study issues;
their communication skills;
the scope of their public outreach program; and
the previous work experience of the team members.
.
.
.
.
Before finalizing this Report to Council, the Working Group that assisted with the
preparation of the Terms of Reference was reconvened. Staff explained the RFP,
proposal review, short-listing, and interview processes to the Working Group. In
addition, the results of the Selection Committee's evaluations were disclosed. Working
Group members appeared satisfied with the process and reasons for the recommended
selection. Furthermore, the Working Group expressed their appreciation on being
involved at this point in the process.
In conclusion, the Selection Committee recommends that the Dillon Consulting Team be
retained to undertake the Growth Management Study.
Also, in order to finalize the City's representation on the Study Steering Committee,
Council should appoint a Ward 3 Councillor to the Committee.
Financial Implications: No direct financial cost to City as funds for the Study have
been secured from major landowners from the area. Indirect costs include staff time.
Report Number CAO 02-03
February 14, 2003
Consultant Selection - Growth Management Study
Page 3
BACKGROUND:
1.0
Selection Committee
On December 9, 2002, Council received Report Number CAO 10-02, which
recommended that the draft Terms of Reference for the Growth Management
Study be adopted and authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposals in
accordance with the City's purchasing policy and procedures.
A Selection Committee was established comprising of the following City staff: the
Chief Administrative Officer; the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer; the
Director, Operations & Emergency Services; the Director, Planning &
Development; the City Clerk; the Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy, and
the Manager, Supply & Services.
2.0
Process
2.1
Request for Proposal
RFP-9-2002 was issued on December 23, 2002, for the Growth Management Study.
An advertisement was placed on the City's website on December 23, 2002; the
Community Page on December 24, 2002, and January 1, 2003; and posted on the
Ontario Professional Planners Institute website. The Institute also distributed a
mail-out notice to approximately 100 firms within their membership. Thirty-eight
consulting firms picked up or were provided a copy of RFP-9-2002.
A bidder's conference was held on January 13, 2003, in which 16 individuals
signed in, representing consulting firms interested in the Growth Management
Study. As a result, Addendum No.1 to the RFP was prepared (see Attachment #1).
The Addendum included a summary of the questions and answers presented at
the bidder's conference, a copy of the sign-in sheet, a list of consultants and an
Addendum to Part 1 of the Terms of Reference. The Addendum was faxed to all
persons who attended the bidder's conference and all those on the list of firms
picking up the original RFP. Five proposals, from multi-disciplinary teams were
received by the January 24, 2003 noon deadline (see Attachment #2).
2.2
Evaluation of Proposals
The evaluation criteria used by the Selection Committee were provided in the
Information to Bidders under paragraph 16 and in the Terms of Reference under
subsection 1.5. The criteria used by the Selection Committee to review the
proposals and to recommend a consulting firm included, but were not limited to,
the factors listed. Different weights were applied to different factors.
Report Number CAO 02-03
February 14, 2003
Consultant Selection - Growth Management Study
Page 4
The evaluation criteria were grouped under seven headings: Firm/Project Team's
Qualifications and Expertise; Past Performance; Completeness of the Proposal;
Understanding of Pickering, Study Issues/Objectives; Team's Proposed
Approaches & Methods: Quality of the Community Outreach Program: and Cost
Effectiveness/Project Schedule & Work Program (see Attachment #3).
A point formula approach was used to score the proposals on an evaluation
criteria matrix. Each member of the Selection Committee scored each proposal
according to each of the criteria headings described above and selected a
"short list" of firms for interviews. Lower scoring firms were eliminated from
further consideration.
For the interview evaluations, the evaluation criteria were grouped under four
headings: Evaluation of Proposed Project Director/Evaluation of Proposed
Project Manager; Presentation; Responses to Questions; and Overall Fit
& Suitability (see Attachment #4). The interview evaluations for each of the
consulting teams were scored using the point formula approach according to
each of the criteria headings.
2.3
Consultant Selection
The Selection Committee met on January 31, 2003, to evaluate the Proposals
submitted, (which were all deemed to be complete) and to select the top firms to
be interviewed. The Committee scored the five proposals as shown in the
attached matrix (see Attachment #5). Proposals ranked 1st and 2nd were short
listed as the two firms to be further evaluated by the Selection Committee. The
proposal which ranked 3rd was not considered for further evaluation, as the
proposal cost was 40% higher than the allocated funding available. The
consulting teams, which ranked 3rd, 4th, and 5th were then advised that they did
not make the shortlist for interviews.
On February ¡th, 2003, the Selection Committee interviewed the consulting
teams headed by Dillon Consulting Limited and Marshall Macklin Monaghan
Limited. Following the interview process, the Selection Committee convened to
review and evaluate the teams. Individual scores were provided by each
Committee member for each firm and then averaged to arrive at an overall score
for each firm. The Dillon Consulting Team scored higher than Marshall Macklin
Monaghan Limited Team (see Attachment #6). The Committee was particularly
impressed by the:
.
the experience of the team;
their understanding of the Pickering context and study issues;
their communication skills;
the scope of their public outreach program; and
the previous work experience of the team members.
.
.
.
.
Report Number CAO 02-03
February 14, 2003
Consultant Selection - Growth Management Study
Page 5
Based on this evaluation, the Selection Committee recommends the consulting
team of Dillon be hired to undertake Pickering's Growth Management.
3.0
Overview of Recommended Proposal
The Dillon Consulting Team has proposed a three-phased work program as
highlighted in Figure 4.1 (see Attachment #7). A brief description of each of the
three phases is provided below.
. Phase 1 - Background
This phase focuses on developing a system of Environmental Constraints and
Opportunities. This will form the backbone of all future development by
defining the areas where development can occur, where it cannot occur and
where it may occur under certain circumstances. There are a number of
components to be completed under Phase 1. At the end of Phase 1,
Background Reports will be prepared on the basis of prior studies, field
investigations and discussions with all review agencies, and documenting the
status of the various services with respect to Seaton and the Agricultural
Assembly lands.
. Phase 2 - Overall Structure Plan
This phase will analyze the background environmental reports to determine the
developable land areas within Seaton. Matching this with updated population
and employment forecast will determine whether there is sufficient land within
Seaton to accommodate the forecast growth. If there are sufficient lands, a
structure plan will be developed. If not, an analysis of alternative growth
options including various urban-rural boundary and urban density
configurations will be undertaken. Following the preferred urban-rural
boundary, a structure plan will be developed including alternative lands use
scenarios for the urban portion of the study areas. Once a preferred land use
scenario is selected, a detailed structure plan, master environmental servicing
plan, infrastructure phasing strategy will be developed. From these plans, a
financial analysis and implementation strategy will be developed.
. Phase 3 - Detailed Neighbourhood Plans, EMSP and Development Guidelines
This phase will develop detailed Neighbourhood Plans in terms of the layout of
streets, distribution of land uses, housing form and lotting, and the location of
parks and parkettes. The roadway network will be defined and analysed for
the first phase of development including non-auto modes of travel (cycling,
walking, transit). As part of the detailed Neighbourhood Plans, Design
Guidelines will be prepared to describe local conditions and provide strategies
for development that defines a level of expectation for the creation of quality
communities as well as allowing for market flexibility.
Report Number CAO 02-03
February 14, 2003
Consultant Selection - Growth Management Study
Page 6
4.0.
A comprehensive Community Outreach Program involving the following key
elements is proposed by the consulting team:
.
Notification and Project Bulletins;
Project Mailing Lists;
Interactive Web site and Project Contact Number;
Community Networking;
Agency Meetings;
Public Meetings/Open Houses;
Task Forces on the Natural, Cultural and Economic Environments;
Council Briefings;
Media;
Design Charrette; and
Study Steering Committee and Technical Review and Advisory Committee
meetings.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As well, the consulting team has indicated that throughout the study, meetings
will be held with interested stakeholders including the First Nations to exchange
information and discuss specific issues of interest to that particular group.
Workinç¡ Group Consultation
A meeting was held on February 11, 2003, with members of the Working Group.
At the meeting, City staff provided an overview of the selection process and
allowed the members the opportunity to comment on the Selection Committee's
recommendation. The Working Group members appeared supportive of the RFP
process undertaken by City staff and the final recommendation of the Selection
Committee. Individual Working Group members also provided the following
comments regarding consulting team's proposal:
.
that the proposal by Dillon Consulting Team be publicly available (once
approved by council); and
that the community outreach program needs to ensure that community
input is garnered on the methods used in undertaking each phase of the
growth management study throughout the study process.
.
A Working Group member also suggested that a representative of the agricultural
community be appointed as a member of the Study Steering Committee.
Report Number CAO 02-03
February 14, 2003
Consultant Selection - Growth Management Study
Page 7
5.0
Recommendation
The Selection Committee recommends that Council approve the selection of
Dillon Consulting Limited, in association with Sorenson Gravely Lowes Planning
Associates, Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Leinster, Joseph Bogdan &
Associates, D.R. Poulton & Associates, AgPlan, LaPointe Consulting Inc.,
Dr. Nick Eyles, Enid Slack Consulting and Andre Scheinman, in the amount of
$497,176.00 including GST for the Growth Management Study; and authorize
staff to enter into any agreements as required to give effect thereto. It is also
recommended that Council appoint a Ward 3 Councillor to the Study Steering
Committee at this meeting.
Attachments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Addendum No.1 to the Terms of Reference
Summary of Consulting Teams Submitting Proposals
City Evaluation Procedure for Proposals
City Interview Evaluations for Proposals
Evaluation of RFP-9-2002 Responses
Evaluation of RFP-9-2002 Interviews
Dillon Consulting Team, Figure 4.1 - Study Approach
Report Number CAO 02-03
February 14, 2003
Consultant Selection - Growth Management Study
Page 8
Everett untsm
Director, Operations & Emergency
Services
/~/
/? \
'---- ,
Bruce Taylor
City Clerk
~.-:~ =--,-
Gil Paterson -
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Thomas E. el uk
Division H ad, Corporate Projects &
Policy
~
/J
f
Neil Carro ,'.
Director, Planning & Development
Vera Felgemacher
Manager, Supply & Services
Approved/Endorsed By:
,
GM\CLR:jj
Attachments
Copy: Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Director, Planning & Development
City Clerk
Solicitor for the City
Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy
Manager, Supply & Services
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City C uncil
Th
. I ,-...- TO
C, (I(() 0 L.. 03
" ,_"-"-_"'."..
RFP-9-2002
Growth Management Study for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly Lands
ADDENDUM NO.1
The following information is provided to prospective bidders to clarify, add
to, or amend the information provided in proposal documents and forms
part of the proposal.
Bidders must acknowledge receipt of this Addendum and return with
their proposal submission.
PART ONE:
Reference: Page 6, City of Pickering Growth Management Study, Council
Adopted Terms of Reference, Section 2.4, Council Resolutions, 3rd bullet
point:
Previously read:
. That the interchange locations on Highway 407 not be located at
North Road and Sideline 22.
Should read:
. That the interchange locations on Highway 407 not be located at
North Road and Sideline 24.
PART TWO: Questions & Answers Discussed at Bidders Conference
2 p.m., January 13, 2003 at Pickering Civic Complex
/
Attendees;.
City Staff:
Neil Carroll, Director, Planning & Development
Tom Melymuk, Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Division
Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy, Planning & Development
Vera Felgemacher, Manager, Supply & Services
Steve Gaunt, Planner II
Prospective Bidders:
See attached list
I' r~i!: nq.!T II 'I TO
",.",-'T,_,_-
; ; f:.AO 91--0.3 .
ADDENDUM NO.1, RFP-9-2002
Growth Management Study for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly Lands
1.0
Introduction:
. Vera Felgemacher gave a brief overview on the purpose of the meeting;
she advised that all those in attendance and all those who had
requested a copy of the RFP will be sent, via facsimile, a copy of the
questions and written responses; attendees were also advised that
copies of RFP package are available from Supply & Services;
. Catherine Rose reminded bidders to sign in and include facsimile and
telephone numbers.
2.0
Questions Submitted Prior to Bidders Conference & Responses
A -
Submitted By Urban Strategies:
Question #A1 Section 2.3 of the terms of reference refers to "work being
completed" by the TRCA, the University of Toronto, and others. Could you explain
the nature of this work and whether that work is complete?
Answer:
Some of the TRCA works are completed and some are in draft form. The
management strategy for Duffins watershed is in draft form and some of the
environmental modeling is now complete.
A number of environmental studies for the Duffins Creek watershed have
been completed. These studies generally cover the Seaton lands, east of
West Duffins Creek. They are available in digital format:
. Water Quality Assessment of Duffins Creek, Focusing on
Streams Draining the North Pickering Development
Corporation lands, Prepared by Gary Bowen, the MOEE
Standards Branch, November 1997;
. Hydrogeological Study of the North Pickering Development
Corporation Lands and the Duffins Creek Watershed, by
N. Eyles, J Boyce and R. Gerber, U.of T., October 1997;
. Seaton lands within the Context of the Duffins Creek
Watershed - Terrestrial Ecosystems Report, by Dena Lewis,
Dan Clayton, MTRCA;
. Seaton lands Stream Assessment - Aquatic Habitat and
Fisheries, Prepared by M. Jones and M. Guy, MNR,
March 1997;
. Fluvial Geomorphology Baseline Study - Seaton lands,
Prepared by J. Parish, Terrain Sciences, August 1997; and,
. Seaton lands Hydrologic Data Base Development, Prepared
by MTRCA, January 1997.
ATTACHMENT #- / TO
r:;:PQRT II CÆo 07-- 03
ADDENDUM NO.1, RFP-9-2002
Growth Management Study for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly Lands
. Duffins Creek Hydrology Update, Prepared by Aquafor Beech
Limited for The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,
2002.
. Duffins Creek Watershed - Water Budget in Urbanizing
Watersheds, Prepared by Clarifica Inc. for The Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority, May 2002.
Recent fieldwork on stream flow characteristics within the Duffins Creek
watershed, undertaken by Parish Geomorphic for The Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, is currently being finalized.
Question #A2 In addition to providing funding, what role, if any, will the
specified land owners play in this study?
Answer:
Landowners' roles are not confirmed at this time. It is anticipated that
landowners will not sit on the Selection Committee. However, it is
anticipated that a representatives from the Province and a representative
from a major owner within the Agricultural Assembly may sit on the Steering
Committee. City Council will be selecting the members of Selection and
Steering Committees shortly.
Question #A3 Can you identify which major "data gaps" the consultant team
will have to address in the course of this study? Can the City provide an estimate
of how much new data will need to be collected?
Answer:
There is available a higher level and broader scope of recent natural
environmental data for the Duffins Creek watershed. However, there is not
a similar level of natural environmental data for the Petticoat Creek
watershed available. The Consultants will have to identify the data gaps to
respond to the deliverables in the RFP.
Follow-up Question:
How much new data is needed?
Answer:
Consultants will have to address the need for new data in their
submissions.
...1
cA Q~.Q?;:.QL_.~.
ADDENDUM NO.1, RFP-9-2002
Growth Management Study for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly Lands
Question #A4 How much of the existing data and mapping will be available
to the study team in digital form?
Answer:
Parqel. fabric mapping and the 1997 Official Plan (including mapping) is
available from the City. TRCA Duffins Creek watershed reports and
mapping are available in digital format.
We have requested, and are anticipating, that the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing will provide their material, including the
December 16, 2002 Seaton Natural Heritage System map. We have a
paper copy of the map and have requested a digital version.
Question #A5 In the assessment of heritage issues in this study, to what
extent will the built (as opposed to natural) environment have to be considered?
Will this heritage assessment have to be completed to EA standards?
Answer:
The heritage assessment will not have to be completed to EA standards.
We are looking for macro level information, not updated evaluations of each
structure. [Note: The 2002 report by Unterman McPhail Associates does
not include the Growth Management Study Area.] Important cultural
heritage resources include the hamlets.
There are only about 8 individual structures designated. One is located within the
Growth Management Study Area: the Woodruff-Mackenzie House, located at
2935 Brock Road, Concession 4, Lot 18. There is a Heritage Conservation District
within and around the Hamlet of Whitevale.
Question #A6 How does the City see the status of the Seaton plan prepared
by Van Nostrand et al. in the mid 1990s?
Answer:
It is background. It was prepared for a Design Competition. The Seaton
Interim Planning Team, who ran the competition, did not ask for a Council
position on the winning document. It was not received by nor endorsed by,
Pickering Council.
! .J .,,-, /___To
uÇA.~~)L ~ QJ.,~,c,
ADDENDUM NO.1, RFP-9-2002
Growth Management Study for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly Lands
Question #A7
for this study?
Specifically, who are the members of the Selection Committee
Answer:
At this time, it is anticipated that the following will comprise the Selection
Committee: the Chief Administrative Officer; the Director, Corporate
Services & Treasurer; the Director, Operations & Emergency Services; the
Director, Planning & Development; the Division Head, Corporate Projects &
Policy, the Manager, Supply & Services.
Question #A8 Notwithstanding the "ground rules" set out in the Terms of
Reference, would the City be willing to consider amending the 8 month timeframe
for this study?
Answer:
The study should be completed by the end of 2003.
Question #A9
Is there a page limit to the proposal?
Answer:
There is no page limit.
B
Questions submitted by Dillon Consulting by E-mail:
Question #81 The Terms of Reference request that the Consulting Team
shall identify and fill any data gaps in information. What provision is there, in the
bidding process, for including additional costs for extra work whose duration and
cost is unknown at the beginning of the project? How does this impact the
timetable for completion of the project given the relatively short time span
allocated by the City? What happens if certain data gaps cannot be filled in this
time frame?
Answer:
Bidders should establish a study process and timetable to the best of their
ability to reflect data gathering at a level commensurate with the decisions
and products they must deliver, in the specified time frame. If data is not
obtainable at the preferred level, the consultant will have to identify any
limitations to their recommendations at that time. Should unexpected data
gaps not addressed in the study contract become apparent later, the Study
Steering Committee may determine how they should be addressed
regarding both timing and pricing.
, :'1
J, t.
".2.~o. o::,::.Q~
ADDENDUM NO.1, RFP-9-2002
Growth Management Study for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly Lands
Question #B2 The Province claims to have done its own environmental
mapping for the Seaton Lands. Will the Consulting Team have access to such
information given that the Team is requested to review all available information?
The same question applies to studies recently completed for the East Duffins area.
Answer:
The City expects the Provincial information will be available in digital form
shortly.
Environmental information including mapping is available for the East
Duffins Area. 1997 information for the East Duffins Area will be made
available.
Question #B3 Consideration of off-site impacts is an important component
of the. Seaton environmental systems assessment. What are the broader
geographic/economic boundaries to be considered?
Answer:
Bidders should identify the boundaries they recommend appropriate for
study of this nature in their submissions.
Question #B4 The proposed study has a number of different components
with requirements for general as well as specific expertise. As well, information
within the RPF can provide different views about the relative importance of that
expertise. For example, agricultural use within the study area as well as the size
of the agricultural preserve would suggest that agriculture needs to be a primary
focus within the study. However, a review of the deliverable reports required by
the City indicates that agriculture has a lesser role. Therefore, can the City assist
consultants in assigning time and resources within their proposals by indicating
which components are viewed by the City to be more important? '
Answer:
The agricultural component of the study is an important issue. Accordingly,
it has been identified as a specific matter to be investigated in the
background phase of the study. Agricultural is one of the competing uses
for land in the study area. The relative importance of agriculture will only be
clear at the end of the study.
/,
cAoqi-o3
ADDENDUM NO.1, RFp.9.2002
Growth Management Study for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly lands
Question #B5 Is preparation of an Official Plan Amendment required for
either Phase Two or Phase Three of the study?
Answer:
Preparation.of an Official Plan Amendment is not a deliverable of the study.
The study requires the consulting team to identify where changes may be
required to the Pickering and Region of Durham Official Plans, and provide
a rationale for those changes. The technical amendment documents will be
prepared by City (and Regional) staff following the study.
Question #B6 It is difficult to cost Phase 3 of the RFP without knowing how
many detailed neighbourhood plans are required or how large an area will be
included in phase one of the development. Can the City provide any information
to guide consultants in allocating costs and resources for this phase?
Answer:
The consulting team should include in their bid the assumptions they are
making for the Neighbourhoods in Phase I (such as the area, the population
and/or employment anticipated), and provide costs for the following:
. 1 neighbourhood;
. 2 neighbourhoods; and
. 4 neighbourhoods.
C - Questions Asked At The Bidders Conference:
Question #C1 If a consulting team is selected to attend the interview, must
all subconsultants be at the interview?
Answer:
Not necessarily, but someone must be able to answer all questions of the
selection committee.
Question #C2
How could the City website be used for public input?
Answer:
The City website has a planning screen with information about current
studies. This can be used to inform the public about the study process,
timing and consultation process. The consultant can propose methods of
using the website, with necessary staff co-ordination, to assist the
consultation strategy. The extent of resources anticipated from the City
must be reasonable.
:' 'I
. CA~.Q~"- 0'3
ADDENDUM NO.1, RFP-9-2002
Growth Management Study for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly Lands
Question #C3 Expand on the need for agricultural assessment addressed on
page 8 of the RFP.
Answer:
The Terms of Reference outline the work to be c0mpleted. The City has an
ecological system, an urban system, and a rural system of which agricultural
use is important. The City holds Agricultural Easements for some of the lands
in the study area. However, there are different views on its long term future.
The City needs advice on its economic viability, suggested strategies and
priorities for agricultural use, recognizing other objectives of the study, such as
the population and employment growth targets. It should be noted that the
stated population figures are City objectives, but are not unchangeable.
Question #C4
Seaton?
Does the City have a critique of the Van Nostrand plan for
Answer:
No. The judges for the Design Competition reviewed each plan.
Question #C5 What is the status of Richard Unterman's work on built
heritage and on the hamlets?
Answer:
Richard Unterman's Inventory of Heritage Properties, Part 1: South
Pickering, Part II: Federal Lands, dated February, 2002 and Inventory of
Heritage Properties, Interim Report Federal Lands, dated December 2001
were completed and have not been formally considered by
Pickering Council.
Question #C6
What is the budget for the study?
Answer:
The City identified a cost of between $400,000 and $500,000 in the
Report to Council. The City has funding up to $500,000.
, I;\C!'::VJENT{j__~TO
,- din II CAD c~ - Ct?;
-- ..~,
ADDENDUM NO.1, RFp.9.2002
Growth Management Study for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly Lands
Question #C7 Where is the Sernas Development Analysis? Is the
Preliminary Structure Plan available in colour?
Answer:
The Province has requested that we keep the Sernas Report confidential.
The Structure Plan was only e-mailed to us in black and white.
Question #C8
Has any infrastructure work been done to date?
Answer:
The City believes so, but the natural heritage map is the only part released
at this time. The Region of Durham has analyzed infrastructure needs, but
we do not have the details of that analysis.
Question #C9 .
Should consultants contact the Province directly?
Answer:
The City prefers consultants to go through the City.
representation is anticipated on the Steering Committee.
Provincial
Question #C10
Does the City have an economic development strategy?
Answer:
Although the City does not have a recent stand-alone economic
development strategy, the Official Plan contains economic development
policy.
Question #C11
When is the study start date?
Answer:
Expected about the beginning of March 2003.
Question #C12
What is the status of the Crombie Principles?
Answer:
We understand that in December, the Hon. Chris Hodgson, then Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, accepted the recommended principles from
the North Pickering Land Exchange Panel. Pickering Council considered
the draft Principles in October 2002 and disagreed with Principle #6
(agricultural use to remain in perpetuity) and the March 31,2003 time frame
for completion of a secondary plan for Seaton.
/
..ç-,t;.. Q~Q).- -ç>1-
ADDENDUM NO.1, RFP-9-2002
Growth Management Study for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly Lands
3.0
Concluding Remarks:
. Written copies of the questions and answers from the Bidders Conference
will be sent via facsimile to all those on the sign-in sheet and pick-up list.
PART THREE: Additional Information
Attached is a list of those who signed the attendance sheet for the Bidders
Conference, and a list of all those who picked up a copy of the RFP.
Bidders must acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in their proposal
submission either by making a statement or by acknowledging this
page and including in the proposal.
End of Addendum 1
Acknowledged by:
Company Name
Signing Officer
Print Name
Signed
)
CITY OF PICKERING
'"'."""'TT# I TO
) : "',::~',:'~ ,I. , ëÞro Q~~O?_..-
ATTENDANCE RECORD - Monday, January 13, 2002, 2:00 pm
\P,ø
RFP - 9 - 2002
Growth Management Study for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly Lands
Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Gulter &
Smith Inc.
Brook, Mcllory /
Brooks, Jeff
Dillon Consulting Ltd.
Dougan & Associates
Engel Consulting Group
Hardy Stevenson & Assoc. Ltd.
Hemson Consultants
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton
Clarkson Plannin Ltd.
Marshall Macklin Monaghan
~
Meridian Planning Consultants Inc.
Metropole Consultants
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Lt
North-South Environmental Inc.
PlanningAlliance
Senes Consultants Ltd.
Sterling Finlayson Architects
The Ethics Group
/
/
Urban Strategies
Valdor Engineering Inc.
416.947.9744
A;t
416.504.5997 A- tf f.t. e- IYI-'
AX "'ft\o50+ï112..
905.686.1651
PAx
416.229.4646
FAX ~o Q . '16
519.822.1609
FA"-
416.485.9700
;'1)(
416.944.8444
FAx
16.593.5090
FA)( J¡.f" if5S'~91 '3 ~f"~ ~ '~S)
ÞAX
905;-~82.4211 .
'Ax"11
705.737.4512
;4)<"
416.537.1074
ÞA)<"
416.364.4414
PAl ' Wl,~
905.854.1112
ïA><
416.593.6499
FAX:
905.764.9380
t:=A'I
416.532.3377
'/><)(
905.839.7271
FAy n'9' 7)" ""t
416.340.9004
ÞA)< 4/6 'No &'"~a>
905.264.0054
Ax:
\"\('\ ::S-ö \'II"'~ .
- "STiFv" WILL, (J
'-¡;'fnSt;r).'
'1(hSt13
.- w&.~
00 V(:;(L dÐ2$CfIo'-""
G,
II
City Staff:
J:drive/Ouotes/Site Visit Sign In sheetdoc
CITY OF PICKERING l ~lP,CHr~WT #_~TO
) '. d~'r if CAo 02.-03
ATTENDANCE RECORD - Monday, January 13, 2002, 2:00 pm
RFP - 9 - 2002
Growth Management Study for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly Lands
..
"
City Staff:
J:drive/Quotes/Site Visit Sign In sheetdoc
FIRMS WHO RECEIVED RFP PROPOSAL
1/4
tTTACHMENT #- I lU
L._,u;H ~ CAO 01--0:5 -
Elizabeth Ewing-Chow
Urban Strategies
257 Adelaide St. W., Ste. 500
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 1 X9
Stephen Willis, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Environmental Planning
Marshall Macklin Monaghan
80 Commerce Valley Drive East
Thornhill, Ontario
L3T 7N4
Tel. 416.340.9004
Fax: 416.340.8400
Tel. 905.882.4211, ex!. 448
Fax 905.882.0055
Ann Joyner, MCIP, RPP
Dillon Consulting Limited
235 Yorkland Blvd., Ste. 800
Toronto, Ontario
M2J 4Y8
Phil Shantz
Engel Consulting Group
801 Eglinton Ave. W., Ste. 400
Toronto, Ontario
M5N 1 E3
Tel. 416.229.4646
Fax 416.229.4692
Tel. 416.485.9700
Fax 416.485.4810
Anne Mcllory
Brook, Mcllory
51 Camden St., Ste. 300
Toronto, Ontario
M5V 1 V2
Paul Laruccia
Hemson Consultants
30 St. Patrick St., Ste. 1000
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 3A3
Tel. 416.504.5997, ex!. 226
Fax 416.504.7712
Tel. 416.593.5090
Fax 416.595.7144
Glen Brown
The Ethics Group
1066 Dunbarton Road
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 1G8
Stephen Bedford
Hardy Stevenson & Assoc. Ltd.
364 Davenport Road
Toronto, Ontario
M5R 1 K6
Tel. 905.839.7271
Fax: 905.839.7288
Tel. 416.944.8444
Fax: 416.944.0900
Jeff Brooks
4 Stagewood Ave.
Courtice, Ontario
L 1 E 2G 1
Pamela Blais, MSc.PI, Ph.D, Principal
Metropole Consultants
822 Richmond St. W., Ste. 202
Toronto, Ontario
M6J 1 C9
Tel.: 905.686.1651 (W-Region)
Fax: 905.436.6612 (W-Region)
Tel. 416.537.1074
Fax 416.537.9471
FIRMS WHO RECEIVED RFP PROPOSAL
2/4
t T1 t\CHP.1EI\1T #--1- TO
'-¡(~l if CAD 0).-03
.~~- -, ~
Eric Saulesleja '
Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler & Smith Inc.
3 Church St., Ste. 200
Toronto, Ontario
M5F 1 M2
Mark Sterling
Sterling Finlayson Architects
1491 Dupont St.
Toronto, Ontario
M6P 3S2
Tel. 416.947.9744
Fax 416.947.0781
Tel. 416.532.3377
Fax 416.532.3063
Dr. Brent Tegler
North-South Environmental Inc.
35 Crawford Crescent, Unit U5
P.O. Box 518
Campbellville, Ontario
LOP 1 BO
Glen W. Thoman, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.
Valdor Engineering Inc.
216 Chrislea Road, Ste. 501
Woodbridge, Ontario
L4L 8S5
Tel. 905.854.1112
Fax: 905-854.0001
Tel. 905.264.0054
Fax 905.264.0069
Alexis Alyea
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Ltd.
171 Victoria St. North
Kitchener, Ontario
N2H 5C5
Mary Mcintyre, Marketing Director
PlanningAlliance
205-317 Adelaide St. West
Toronto, Ontario
M5V 1 P9
Tel. 519.576.3650
Fax 519.576.0121
Tel. 416.593.6499
Fax 416.593.4911
Katherine Dugmore
Senes Consultants Ltd.
121 Granton Drive, Unit 12
Richmond Hill, Ontario
L4B 3N4
Margot Ursic, R & D Coordinator
Dougan & Associates
7 Waterloo Avenue
Guelph, Ontario
N1 H 3H2
Tel. 905.764.9380
Fax: 905.764.9386
Tel. 519.822.1609
Fax 519.822.5389
Jeremy Warson
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited
3 Church St., Ste. 100
Toronto, Ontario
M5E 1 M2
Keith MacKinnon
Meridian Planning Consultants Inc.
113 Collier St.
Barrie, Ontario
L4M 1 H2
Tel. 416.364.4414
Fax 416.364.2099
Tel. 705.737.4512
Fax 705.737.5078
J=IRMS WHO RECEIVED RFP PROPOSAL
3/4
~nACHMENT#_J TO
¡,\E?ORT # CAG O;l.- 03
Barbara Brown
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
14 Abacus Road
Brampton, Ontario
L6T 5B7
Darren A. Karasiuk
The Communicor Group Inc.
208 - 56 The Esplanade
Toronto, Ontario
M5E 1A7
Tel. 905.794.2325
Fax 905.794.2338
Tel. 416.367.5998
Fax 416.367.9528
John O. Winter
John Winter Associates Ltd.
Ste. 201, Two Wheeler Avenue
,Toronto, Ontario
M4E 3A1
Hugh Stewart/Bob Clark
Clark Consulting Services
30 North S1.
Port Hope, Ontario
L 1A 1T6
Tel. 416.691.1870
Fax: 416.694.6258
Tel. 905.885.8023
Fax: 905.885.4785
Kevin Tunney
Tunney Planning Inc.
340 Byron Street South, Ste. 200
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 4P8
Todd Brown
Monteith Planning Consultants
610 Princess Ave.
London, Ontario
N6B 2B9
Tel. 905.666.9735
Fax 905.666.2468
Tel. 519.686.1300
Fax 519.681.1690
Don Manlapaz
Giffels Associates Limited
30 International Blvd.
Toronto, Ontario
M9W 5P3
Peter Walker
Walker Nott Dragicevic Assoc.
172 S1. George S1.
Toronto, Ontario
M5R 2M7
Tel. 416.675.5950
Fax 416.675.4620
Tel. 416.968.3511
Fax: 416.960.0172
Michelle Armstrong
FoTenn Consultants Inc.
223 McLeod S1.
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P Ol8
Patrick Morello
Pgm Design Associates
23 Hocken Ave.
Toronto, Ontario
M6G 2K1
Tel: 613.730.5709, ext. 232
Fax: 613.730.1136
Tel: 416.657.8881
Fax: 416.352.5201
l "
'.';n !I.~~..___,TO
ÇAQ._Q1:.-o:?
Summary of Teams (Firm Names and Personnel)
Submitting Proposals for Pickering's Growth Management Study
RFP-9-2002
Dillon ConsultinQ Limited
I n association with:
Andre Scheinman, Heritage Preservation Consultant
Sorenson Gravely Lowes Planning Associates
Hough Woodland Naylor Dance Leinster
Joseph Bogdan & Associates
DR. Poulton & Associates
Lapointe Consulting Inc.
Enid Slack Consulting
Nick Eyles
AgPlan
Dillon Consulting
- Ann Joyner,
- Jennifer Harker,
Joe Puopolo,
Claudio Covelli,
Karla Kolli,
Don S. McKinnon,
Sean Salvatori,
- Tom P. Young,
Andre Scheinman
Heritage Preservation
- Andre Scheinman,
Sorenson Gravely Lowes
Planning Associates
Paul Lowes,
- Warren Sorensen,
Hough Woodland Naylor
Dance Leinster
Caroline Marshall,
Eha Naylor,
Project Manager,
Community Outreach
Team Leader
Environmental Systems
Team Leader
Engineering Services
Team Leader
Transportation
Consultation and
Facilitation
Transportation Design
Hydrogeology
Terrestrial Biology
Built Heritage
Consultant
Planning
Project Manager Structure
Plan, Team Leader
Associate Principal,
Cultural Heritage
Landscapes
Principal, Recreation/
Open Space
t"'HCHf,~nJT #-1-_TO
,..~:, #, CAD O}..-O3
Summary of Teams (Firm Names and Personnel)
Submitting Proposals for Pickering's Growth Management Study
RFP-9-2002
Page 2
Joseph Bogdan & Associates - Joseph Bogdan,
Community Design
Team Leader
DR. Poulton & Associates Inc.- Dana R. Poulton,
Archaeology
Lapointe Consulting Inc.
Linda Lapointe,
Population and
Employment
Enid Slack Consulting
Enid Slack,
Municipal Finance
University of Toronto
Nick Eyles,
Ground and Surface Water
AgPlan Limited
Michael Hoffman,
President and Agriculture
N. Barry Lyon Consultants
N. Barry Lyon,
Mark Conway
Market Assessment
Market Assessment
ATTi',"}"','r~JT # J- ,TO
,¥..I., -'--
!( ,;¡)'¡ f.'ýA q.J.J 2- -03
Summary of Teams (Firm Names and Personnel)
Submitting Proposals for Pickering's Growth Management Study
RFP-9-2002
Page 3
Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd.
I n association with:
Ontario Agricultural Training Institute
PlanningAlliance/Brook Mcilroy Inc.
Totten Sims Hubicki Associates
Unterman McPhail Associates/
Archaeological Services Inc.
Urban Marketing Collaborative
Engel Consulting Group
Wallace Roberts Todd
Gartner Lee Limited
Will Dunning Inc.
IBI Group
Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd.-
Elizabeth Howson,
Bob Crews,
Project Director
Project Manager
Ontario Agricultural
Training Institute
Carolyn Pietsch,
- Tony Fuller,
Executive Director
Senior Analyst
PlanningAlliance
- John van Nostrand,
Senior Urban Planner
Pat Hanson,
Project Urban Designer,
Architect
Planner &
Public Participation
Architect, Imagining
Graeme Burt,
Carlos Moreno,
Brook Mcilroy Inc.
- Anne Mcilroy,
Senior Urban Designer
Calvin Brook
Urban Design Coordinator
Jennifer Keesmat,
Policy Planning,
Public Consultation
Harold Madi,
Development Scenarios,
Design Standards,
Public Consultation
.",.,
If --.,?:.,-- TO
CAD OL-O3
'~._.....,.."."._...._-"..,".
Summary of Teams (Firm Names and Personnel)
Submitting Proposals for Pickering's Growth Management Study
RFP-9-2002
Page 4
Diana Gerrard Landscape
Architecture
Diana Gerrard,
Landscape Architecture &
Environmental Design
M C Hannay Urban Design
Michael Hannay,
Residential Urban
Designer
Totten Sims Hubicki Assoc.
Doug Allingham,
President, Project Director
Paul Bumstead,
Senior Transportation
Planner
- James McEwen,
Vice President,
Municipal Engineer
Ross Pattenden,
Senior Designer
(Watermains)
Ray H. Tufgar,
Senior Water Resources
Engineer
Unterman McPhail
Associates
Richard M. Unterman,
Project Manager,
Environmental Systems
Assessment
Barbara E. McPhail,
Information Sources
Review,
Conservation Planning
Archaeological Services Inc. -
Ron Williamson,
Archaeologist
Wiliam Woodworth, Architect - William Woodworth,
Cultural Advisor
Urban Marketing Collaborative- John Williams,
Principal in Charge
- Anna Ritacca,
Commercial Analyst
Engel Consulting Group
Erika Engel,
Public Consultation
Facilitator
Phil Shantz,
Facilitator
t:nt:::Hrmn#__~TO
f:~.Ji;' r -..,..Ç,6J2..Q?:.:p3
Summary of Teams (Firm Names and Personnel)
Submitting Proposals for Pickering's Growth Management Study
RFP-9-2002
Page 5
Wallace Roberts Todd
Paul M. Rookwood,
Senior Landscape
Arch itect
Stephen Hammond,
Senior Designer
Gartner Lee Limited
Dale A. Leadbeater,
Senior Biologist,
Environmental
Project Manager
Dennis L. German,
Senior Hydrogeologist
Will Dunning Inc.
- Will Dunning,
Residential Market Analyst
IBI Group
Randy Grimes,
- Audrey Jacob,
Karen Siu,
Christine Yee,
Director
Employment Analysis
Fiscal Impact Study and
Financial Tools Develop.
Employment Analysis
ATTACHMENT" J... TO
r;¡:;'JRT # CAD OJ- -0:5
Summary of Teams (Firm Names and Personnel)
Submitting Proposals for Pickering's Growth Management Study
RFP-9-2002
Page 6
Marshall Macklin Mona~han Team
I n association with:
J. Wayne Caldwell, University of Guelph
Cumming & Company
AMEC
Marshall Macklin Monaghan - Stephen Willis,
Lisa A. Prime,
- Jeff Warren,
Rob Bishop,
Murray Gomer,
Robert W. Webb,
- Tom Rotella,
lamoire Alexander,
- J. Hans VanPoorten,
- Jim Gough,
Sham Nankoosingh,
Chris Tyrrell,
Bruce Singbush,
Cumming & Company
Susan Cumming,
University of Guelph
- Wayne Caldwell,
AMEc
- Andreas Stenzel,
Project Director
Project Manager
Senior Biologist
Vice President,
Water Resources
Senior Hydrogeologist
Senior Vice President,
Municipal Engineering
Senior Project Manager,
Municipal Engineering,
Partner
Senior Project Manager,
Water Resources
Vice President,
Project Management and
Senior Financial Analyst
Senior Project Manager,
Transportation and
Associate Partner of MMM
Senior landscape
Architect
Senior Planner/
Project Manager
Senior Planner and
Associate with MMM
Public Outreach
and Consultation
Agriculture
Co-Manager
:."1Jo"'~JI\~n1ifl J- TO
" ,',";1'1';~' ëÄo-o). . 05
Summary of Teams (Firm Names and Personnel)
Submitting Proposals for Pickering's Growth Management Study
RFP-9-2002
Page 7
The Planninç, Partnership
In association with:
Sterling Finlayson Architects
Poulos & Chung Limited
Royal LePage Advisor
Schollen & Company
Leap Consulting
LGL Limited
MacViro
The Planning Partnership
Sterling Finlayson Architects -
Poulos & Chung Limited
Royal LePage Advisors
Schollen & Company Inc.
Leap Consulting
LGL Limited
Rick Merrill,
Ron Palmer,
Donna Hinde,
Mark Sterling,
Nick Poulos,
Scott Chandler
Steve Ward,
Mark Schollen,
- Jonathan Watchurst,
Brad Bricker,
- Joseph Cavallo,
Ken Glasbergen,
Marc Gaboury,
Peter J. Kuntz,
Robert Nisbet,
- Anthony Lang,
- Anthony Goodvan
Urban Design,
Co-Project Manager
Land Use/Policy Planner
Community Consultation
Co-Project Manager
Transportation Planner,
Traffic Engineer
Vice President,
Market/Feasibility Studies
Senior Consultant
Market/Feasibility Studies
Urban Designer and
Landscape Architect
Agric~lturalist
Professional Ecologist
Field Ecologist
Ecologist
Fish Habitat Restoration
GIS Specialist
Wildlife Management
Senior Biologist
~- n
-"^ çt Q~,.Q.z_:>Q~¿
Summary of Teams (Firm Names and Personnel)
Submitting Proposals for Pickering's Growth Management Study
RFP-9-2002
Page 8
MacViro
- Adel Ashamalla,
Mario Conetta,
Water Resources
Engineer
Water Resou rces
Engineer
Municipal Infrastructure
Engineer
Hyd rogeolog ist
Water Resources
Engineer
Stan Holden,
Muin Husain,
- William Clarke,
¡"nACHMWTfI ~TO
r-;:;'URl Ii ~ 0 Q.;J.. -a;
Summary of Teams (Firm Names and Personnel)
Submitting Proposals for Pickering's Growth Management Study
RFP-9-2002
Page 9
PLANSCAPE
In association with:
Greenland International Consulting Inc.
Azimuth Environmental Limited
SENES Consultants Limited
PLANSCAPE
Richard Hunter,
Margaret Wilson,
- Walter H. Kehm,
Principal in Charge
Planning Consultant
Manage Urban Design
Team
Greenland International
Consulting Limited
R. Mark Palmer,
- Jim Hartman,
Bill Coffey,
Principal
Municipal Servicing
Task Leader
Stormwater Management
Task Leader
- John T. Beebe,
Fluvial Geomorphology
Specialist
Azimuth Environmental
Paul Neals,
Mike Jones,
Founding Member
Senior Hydrogeologist/
Hydrochemist
Senior Ecologist/Botanist
Aquatic Biologist
Martha Scott,
Sara Murphy,
SENES
Katherine Dugmore,
Assistant Project Manager
RJ. Burnside and Associates - Ted Prokopec,
Vice President,
Transportation
Leonard Borgdorff
Pgm Design Associates
Pat Morello,
Principal
n/a
Charles Simon,
Urban Design
n/a
Mark Waldron,
Urban Design
ATTACHMENT I 3 TO
REPORT' CAD 02. -03
Proposal for a Growth Management Study for the
Seaton and Agricultural Assembly Lands in the
City of Pickering
Evaluation Procedure
Selection Committee
. Tom Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer
. Everett Buntsma, Director, Operations & Emergency Services
. Gil Paterson, Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
. Neil Carroll, Director, Planning & Development
. Tom Melymuk, Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy
. Bruce Taylor, City Clerk
. Vera Felgemacher, Manager, Supply & Services
jnformaljon Reqard,na Evaluation Criteria Supplied to Bidders
The Information to Bidders contained the following paragraph:
"16.
The evaluation criteria to be used by the Selection Committee for reviewing the
proposals and recommending a consulting team to Council may include, but shall
not be limited to, the factors listed below. The Selection Committee may apply
different weights to the different factors:
. proposed Environmental Systems assessment methodology;
. understanding of Pickering's principles for growth management;
. understanding of Pickering's history, context and issues;
. understanding of study issues and objectives;
. understanding and experience with Greater Toronto Area issues;
. the quality of the public outreach program;
. experience with planning and developing innovative and marketable projects
in the GT A, and sustainable community design;
. the relevant experience of the firm(s) and the project team;
. compliance with the Terms of Reference;
. the creative approach to accomplishing the study;
. the advice of references provided in the submission;
. detailed project schedule, timetable and work program;
. cost effectiveness of the proposal;
. the oral presentation if selected for an interview;
. fee schedule."
ATTACHMENT #---3 TO
REPORT # CAO é)2.=..Q$
Growth Management Study Evaluation of Proposals for RFP - 9-2002
Page 2
Evaluation Criteria
For the convenience of the Selection Committee, staff has grouped the criteria under
7 headings. There will also be the interview results for the short-listed teams. Matters
to consider under each criterion are summarized for reference on the next few pages.
The attached Evaluation Matrix contains the main headings and the proposal's lead
firm.
Process
The Selection Committee will use a point formula during the review process to score
proposals. Each member of the Selection Committee will first score each technical
proposal by each of the criteria described below.
The Committee will then convene to determine approximately top three "short list" firms to
be interviewed. At this point, firms with an unacceptably low technical score will be
eliminated from further consideration.
Following interviews, the full Selection Committee will then convene to review and discuss
these evaluations and to combine the individual scores to arrive at a composite technical
score for each firm.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
1.
Firm I Project Team's Qualifications and Expertise: Consideration should be
given to: the relevant experience of the firm(s) and the relevant experience of the
members of the project team; the number of recent similar projects completed, the
manner in which they were undertaken, their success, etc.
Points assigned:
15
2.
Past Performance: Evaluation of past performance will be important in
determining the probable future ability and activities of the firm / individuals and
probable successful and acceptable completion of projects within the estimated
time and budget limits. Client references and reputation of the consultant within
the profession are very important facets of this criterion. Would the firm's past
customers utilise their services again? How did the original cost estimate for
projects compare with actual costs billed? What is the advice of references
provided in the submission?
Points assigned:
10
7.
ATTACHMENT #.;3 TO
REPORT # CAO 02- - 03
Growth Management Study Evaluation of Proposals for RFP - 9-2002
Page 3
3.
Completeness of the proposal: Does the proposal comply in all respects with
the Terms of Reference? A logical, well-documented proposal is indicative of a
firm that should be able to proceed with a minimum of delay.
Points assigned:
10
4.
Understanding of Pickering, Study Issues I Objectives: Consideration should
be given to how well the consulting team demonstrates: an understanding of
Pickering's principles for growth management; an understanding of Pickering's
history, context and issues; an understanding of the study issues and objectives;
an understanding and experience with Greater Toronto Area issues; and
experience with planning an developing innovative and marketable projects in the
GT A, and sustainable community design.
Points assigned:
15
5.
Team's Proposed Approaches & Methods: Consideration should be given to
the consulting team's: Environmental Systems Assessment methodology; and the
creative approach to accomplishing the study.
Points assigned:
10
6.
Quality of the Community Outreach Program: Consideration should be given
to matters such as the following: the appropriateness of the proposed
methods/formats relative to nature of information, frequency and timing, and First
Nations consultation.
Points assigned:
10
Cost Effectiveness I Project Schedule & Work Program: Consideration should
be given to: the cost effectiveness of the proposal; the bid price; the fee schedule;
the work program, task timetable including target dates; and the amount of staff
time proposed per task.
Points assigned:
15
TOTAL (PROPOSAL EVALUATION):
I 85 points
Attachment - Matrix
Clrlgrowthmanagementlproposaleval.doc
January 24, 2003
Growth Management Study Evaluation of Proposals for RFP - 9-2002
Page 4
Proposal for a Growth Management Study for the
Seaton and Agricultural Assembly Lands in the
City of Pickering
Evaluation of RFP-9-2002 Responses
EVALUATION CRITERIA (Score Numerically Highest = Excellent; 0 = Unsatisfactory)
Firm' Project Past Completeness Understanding Approaches & Community Cost
FIRM Team's Performance of the of Pickering, Methods Outreach Effectiveness' TOTAL
Qúalifications Proposal Study Issues' Program Project SCORE
and Expertise Objectives Schedule' (max. 85
(10) (10) (15\ (101 l10) Work Program points)
~ (15)
Dillon, et al
Macaulay Shiomi
Howson, et al
Marshall Macklin
Monaqhan, et al
The Planning
Partnership, et al
Planscape, et al
L-
:Oþ
,n ~
'\:) ~
C J>
::0 n
-I:r:
~:.;s:
m
æ
~
~:
!J
}--
ìd
C'\
(J¡
~\rT I\CH!VIEm # _1 TO
It CA () 02 ~ Cc3
Proposal for a Growth Management Study for the
Seaton and Agricultural Assembly Lands in the
City of Pickering RFP - 9-2002
INTERVIEW EVALUATIONS:
1.
Evaluation of Proposed Project Director/Manager: Evaluation should include
but not be limited to:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
position & responsibilities within their firm
past experience in directing similar studies
amount of direct time to be spent on, and specific role in, this study
compatibility with City staff
understanding of proposed project
oral communication skill
Points assigned:
25
2.
Presentation: the quality of the oral presentation as a demonstration of their oral
presentation skills.
Points assigned:
15
3.
Responses to Questions: substance of responses; clarity of responses to
questions; ability to answer succinctly.
Points assigned:
40
4.
Overall Fit & Suitability:
Points assigned:
20
TOTAL INTERVIEW EVALUATIONS:
See Attachments - Questions & Matrix
/100 points
,H
./,I 4 T"
If -=..",-,- 0
..ç~..£..£~. - 03~_=
TP:JF1f i/
Growth Management Study Evaluation of Proposals for RFP - 9-2002
Page 2
Attachment 1: Interview Questions:
1. We'd like the Project Director and Manager to provide an overview of:
(a) his/her position & responsibilities within their firm
(b) his/her past experience in directing similar studies
(c) the amount of direct time to be spent on, and specific role in, this study
(d) what he/she sees as the key challenge in his/her responsibilities on the
study
2. What does your team consider to be the most important decision point in
Pickering's Growth Management Study, and why?
3. Do you believe it is appropriate to apply the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan approach to natural heritage system definition to the Growth Management
Study Area, and why?
4. You had an opportunity to review the existing information available to complete
the Environmental Systems Assessment. Assuming there is no additional money
authorized for work beyond your current proposal, how will this affect your ability
to complete the Study?
5. How do you interpret Council's "Ground Rules" and how will they affect the way
you conduct this Study?
6. How will your team be able to achieve appropriate public consultation given the
tight timeframe for the study completion?
7. Many award-winning plans sit on shelves, and are later revised to reflect
development realities. How will your approach result in a plan that is realistic and
able to be implemented?
8. Is there any change with respect to your team members declaration respecting
conflict of interest? Are any team members (or other members of anyone of the
firms on the team) actively working for a plan of subdivision or supporting
documentation for lands in Seaton?
9. If for any reason the City decides to terminate this Study at some point through
the study process, the City proposes to pay you for the work completed to that
point and obtain all work completed. Would this be acceptable to you?
10. What is the top reason the City should retain your team?
Growth Management Study Evaluation of Proposals for RFP - 9-2002
Page 3
Optional Questions
How will you handle the Province given its current interest in running its own process?
How would you handle a special interest group that tries to take control of the study
process?
Based on your work on a project that is the most similar to this Study, how did you
change your approach to this Study, and why?
C I rlgrowth manageme n t\projecteva I. doc
February 6, 2003
Growth Management Study Evaluation of Proposals for RFP - 9-2002
Page 4
Proposal for a Growth Management Study for the
Seaton and Agricultural Assembly lands in the
City of Pickering
Attachment 2: Matrix Evaluation of RFP-9-2002 Interviews
EVALUATION CRITERIA (Score Numerically Highest = Excellent; 0 = Unsatisfactory)
Project Director's and Manager's Experience, Quality of Oral Responses to Questions Overall Fit and TOTAL
FIRM Time & Direct Contribution, Challenge Presentation Suitability SCORE
(max.
(25) (15) 100
(40) (20) points)
Dillon,
at al
--
Marshall
Macklin
Monaghan,
at al
~--
Committee Member
CI"gmwth ma na gement\pmposal evalmal;¡X:êicc
Date
Feb,uary 7.2003
;:IJ):->
I'll '--I
ëJ -~
§Sf;
-I ::r::
~ลก:
m
2:
-f
g':
\)
N
'd
C)
\N
Proposal for a Growth Management Study for the
Seaton and Agricultural Assembly Lands in the
City of Pickering
ATTACHMENT ,~!5 TO
REPORT #~tA-Q DrJ- "3
Evaluation of RFP-9-2002 Responses
January 31,2003 Main Committee Room, 12:00pm - 2:00pm
Marshall Macauley The Planning
Macklin Shiomi Howson, Partnership,
Monaghan, et al et al
et al
Committee Member 1 75 70 71.5 66 71
Committee Member 2 64 68 69 61 61
Committee Member 3 63 68 64 51 50
Committee Member 4 73 64 60 55 45
Committee Member 5 68 62 65 50 42
Committee Member 6 68 73 68 64 51
Attendance
Committee Members
Resource Members
G. Paterson, Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
B. Taylor, City Clerk
T. Melymuk, Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Division
N. Carroll, Director, Planning & Development
E. Buntsma, Director, Operations & Emergency Services
V. Felgemacher, Manager, Supply & Services
C. Rose, Manager, Policy, Planning & Development
G. McGregor, Principal Planner, Policy
Proposal for a Growth Management Study for the
Seaton and Agricultural Assembly Lands in the
City of Pickering
An ACHMENT 11 ~- TO
..., .,..,
REPORT #CAD..-Ocð-". j ~_.
Evaluation of RFP-9-2002 Interviews
February 7,2003 Main Committee Room, 9:30am -12:30pm
Committee Member 1
Committee Member 2
Committee Member 3
Committee Member 4
Committee Member 5
80
82
84
82
80
Marshall Macklin
Monaghan,
Et al
59
65
77
86
74
Attendance
Committee Members
Resource Members
B. Taylor, City Clerk
T. Melymuk, Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Division
N. Carroll, Director, Planning & Development
E. Buntsma, Director, Operations & Emergency Services
V. Felgemachêr, Manager, Supply & Services
C. Rose, Manager, Policy, Planning & Development
G. McGregor, Principal Planner, Policy
Absent:
G. Paterson, Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
z
0
I-
<t
~
::I
(J)
Z
0
()
(J)
W
...J
D:I
<t
c:
w
>
::::¡
w
c
PHASE 1 (2 months)
PHASE 2 (6 months)
PHASE 3 (2 months)
Environmental
Systems
Assessment
(J)
(J)
w
()
0
c:
a.
>-
c
::I
I-
(J)
Transportation
System Plan
Urban Area
Master Environmental
Servicing Plan
Agricultural
Community
Assessment
F;'" Ph", ~
Neighbourhood Plan
Options Including
. . "'-....!!1frastructur~
i~l Financial Strategies -
I General and
I Nelghbourhood Level
I
I
J
I
I
I
Options for
Urban/Non-Urban
Structure and
Environmental
Protection
EnVIronmental
Systems - Constraints
and Opportunities
Urban and
Non-Urban
Area Structure Plan
Background
Servicinç¡ Studies
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Background
Transportation
Studies
Other Background
Studies - Recreation
and Open Space
Population and
Emplovment
~
PUBLIC
MEETING
TASK FORCE MEETINGS - - - - - - - - - -
I
DESIGN
CHARETTE
I
DESIGN
CHARETTE
PUBLIC
MEETING
PUBLIC
MEETING
------------------
-----
-----------------
STUDY STEERING
COMMITTEE
INITIATION MEETING
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
TECHNICAL REVIEW &
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
& STUDY STEERING
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
TECHNICAL REVIEW &
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
& STUDY STEERING
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
TECHNICAL REVIEW &
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
& STUDY STEERING
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Phase 1 Deliverables
-Environmental Systems Analysis Report
-Agricultural Community Assessment Report
Phase 2 Deliverables
-Overall Structure Plan (including Transportation System Plan,
Urban Area Development Strategy Report, Phasing Strategy,
General Financial Strategies and Mechanisms)
-Master Urban Area EnVIronmental Servicing Plan
(including Water and Waste Water Servicing)
-Rationale Report
Interim Progress Reports
-Second Phase Consultation Report
Phase 3 Deliverables
-Nelghbourhood Report(s) (including Development!
Design Guidelines, Detailed Master Environmental
Servicing Plants), and Implementation
and Financial Strategies)
-Public or Agency Consultation Report (consolidated)
Interim Progress Reports
-Background Reports for Recreation/Open Space and
Population/Employment, Transportation and Servicing
(Water/Wastewater/Stormwater
-First Phase Consultation Report
~ Dillon Consulting Limited With ~
Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates
~ Hough Woodland Naylor Dance LeÏllster ~ Joseph Bogdan & Associates ~ D.R. Poulton & Associates ~AgPlan ~ LaPointe
Consulting Inc. ~ Dr. Nick Eyles ~ Enid Slack Consulting ~ Andre Scheilllnan
Pickering Growth Management Study
STUDY PROCESS
ATTACHMENT' 7 TO
REPORT' C-AJ:Lßd - D ,3
Figure 4.1