HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 24-13 city oar Report to
°
Executive Committee
- f , _al
eTCKERI G
Report Number: PLN 24-13
Date: November 11, 2013
From: Thomas Melymuk
Director, City Development
Subject: Pre 2014 Current Budget Approval
Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of
the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013
- File: 0-5260-005
Recommendation:
1. That Council provide pre 2014 current budget approval for consulting services for
a study of the financial and economic impacts of the retirement of the Pickering
Nuclear Generating Station for an estimated total cost including contingency not
to exceed $95,000 (net HST rebate) which study is to be funded in its entirety by
Ontario Power Generation;
2. That the proposal submitted by HDR Corporation, dated October 7, 2013, to
undertake a study of the financial and economic impacts of the retirement of the
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (RFP-11-2013) in the amount of
$90,219.20 (HST included) be accepted;
3. That Council authorize the Division Head, Finance & Treasurer to fund the net
total project cost of $95,000 (net of HST rebate) through a contribution from
Ontario Power Generation;
4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to enter into any
agreements to give effect hereto; and
5. Further, that the City Clerk forward a copy of Report Number PLN 24-13 to the
Region of Durham and the Ontario Power Generation.
Executive Summary: In 2010, the Ontario Power Corporation (OPG) announced that
the Pickering Nuclear Generation Station (PNGS) would be retired commencing in 2020.
Following subsequent discussions with the City in 2013, OPG committed to fund a City
managed financial impact study of the retirement of PNGS.
Accordingly, a Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013, was issued on September 20,
2013, by the City calling for proposals by consultants to undertake the Study of the
Financial and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating
Station. The closing date was October 7, 2013. The City received proposals from five
multi-disciplinary consulting teams lead by: Ernst & Young, HDR Corporation, IBI
Group, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Watson & Associates.
396
Report PLN 24-13 November 11, 2013
Subject: Consultant Selection for a Study of the Financial and Economic Page 2
Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
An Evaluation Committee made up of City staff reviewed all proposals against criteria
outlined in the RFP. The highest ranking proponent is HDR Corporation. The
Evaluation Committee found that the submission by HDR Corporation best met the
City's needs in completing the deliverables, considering their team's strengths relative
to the required work, and value for the money.
It is therefore recommended that the proposal submitted by HDR Corporation be
accepted and that HDR Corporation be retained to undertake the Study of the Financial
and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
which is to be funded in its entirety by OPG.
Financial Implications:
1. Request for Proposal Amount
Proposal Cost $79,840.00
HST (13%) 10,379.20
Gross Proposal Amount $90,219.20
2. Estimated Project Cost Summary
Proposed Cost $79,840.00
Contingency 13,517.00
Total Project Cost $93,357.00
HST (13%) 12,136.00
Total Gross Project Cost $105,493.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (10,493.00)
Total Net Project Cost $95,000.00
3. Source of Funds
City Development Department - Planning & Design
Account Code Source of Funds Budget Required
2611.2392. Contribution from 0.00 $95,000.00
OPG
Total Funds $0.00 $95,000.00
Pre-budget approval is required to allow awarding of the contract in 2013 which will
allow for the completion of the study and the presentation of its findings to Council by
July 2014. Council decisions or direction from this report can then be implemented
during the remainder of the year.
397
Report PLN 24-13 November 11, 2013
Subject: Consultant Selection for a Study of the Financial and Economic Page 3
Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
1. Background
1.1 Ontario Power Generation commits to fund a City managed study
In 2010, the Ontario Power Corporation (OPG) announced that the Pickering B
Nuclear Generation Station would not be refurbished and that Pickering A and B
Nuclear Generation Station (PNGS) would be retired commencing in 2020.
In a letter dated April 19, 2013 (see Attachment#1) and introduced at the
April 22nd meeting of Council, OPG committed to fund a City managed
financial/economic impact and land use study of the retirement of PNGS.
2. Discussion
2.1 A Request For Proposal for Consulting Services was issued
On September 20, 2013, the City issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) for
Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the
Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. The study will present
key findings and develop recommended strategies to address financial and
economic impacts. The scope of work includes but will not necessarily be limited
to analysis of the impact of the retirement of the PNGS on the following:
• direct and indirect impacts on the City's finances and local economy
caused by changes in PNGS's expenditures and employment during the
study period (2015-2020)
• economic impacts on the City's industrial, commercial and institutional
sectors, including changes during the study period in overall employment
(job creation and losses) and total floor space
• impact on City services including fire, emergency, roads and recreational
services
• impact on property values and residential housing market and the impact
any such changes may have on the City's finances, and
• impact on the City's tax revenue and payments in lieu of taxes during the
study period
The RFP was an open proposal call and did not state an upset limit. Nine
qualified consulting firms based on their experience with similar projects in the
areas of financial and economic impact analysis and the nuclear power
generation industry were provided a copy of the RFP. An advertisement was
placed on the City's website to generate additional interest and competition. The
RFP closed on October 7, 2013.
Five proposals were received from the following multi-disciplinary consulting
teams:
• Ernst & Young in association with Dr. Steve Tanny, Economic Consultant
• HDR Corporation in association with Dr. David Bullen, Nuclear Subject
Matter Specialist
398
Report PLN 24-13 November 11, 2013
Subject: Consultant Selection for a Study of the Financial and Economic Page 4
Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
• IBI Group
• PricewaterhouseCoopers
• Watson & Associates in association with AECOM Canada Ltd.
2.2 HDR Corporation is recommended for selection
On October 17, 2013, an Evaluation Committee consisting of the Director, City
Development; the Senior Planner— Policy, City Development; the Coordinator,
Economic Development, City Development; and the Buyer, Supply & Services,
Corporate Services, reviewed the proposals against the criteria (see Attachment
#2), outlined in the RFP. Although the Evaluation Committee was impressed
with the quality of all five submissions, the proposal of HDR Corporation was the
highest scoring proposal (see Attachment #3) and it is recommended that
Council accept this proposal.
HDR Corporation has significant experience in the economic impacts of
decommissioning energy assets and has put together a team that includes strong
skills in financial and economic impact analysis and nuclear energy. Council will
be kept advised of the study program as it is undertaken and at the conclusion of
the study, the final study report will be forwarded to Council for consideration.
3. Recommendations
It is therefore recommended that Council authorize pre 2014 current budget
approval for consulting services for a study of the financial and economic impacts
of the retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station for an upset limit of
$95,000 to be financed 100 per cent by Ontario Power Generation and that the
proposal submitted by HDR Corporation, dated October 7, 2013, be accepted. It
is further recommended that staff be authorized to enter into any agreements as
required to give effect hereto.
Attachments:
1. Letter from Wayne Robbins, Chief Nuclear Officer, Ontario Power Generation,
dated April 19, 2013
2. Supply & Services Summary Memorandum, October 9, 2013
3. Supply & Services Summary Memorandum, October 18, 2013
399
Report PLN 24-13 November 11, 2013
Subject: Consultant Selection for a Study of the Financial and Economic Page 5
Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
/014/A ��
/J
Deborah Wylie, IP, RPP Thomas Mely uk, ,'CIP, RPP
Senior Planner Policy Director, City Development
-a)\-
Vera A. Felgemacher, Stan Karwowski, CMA, MBA
CSCMP, CPPC, CPPB, C.P.M., CMM III Division Head, Finance &Treasurer
Manager, Supply & Services
DW:Id
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City 'uncill
� 'r -A A/ 2a
� � zs, 0
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
400
ATTACHMENT# f TO - .
REPORT# Pt.»'2.4-I _ - •
ONTARIOWitifitEAREni4OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
I pR 20 .3 Wayne Robbins
ONTAR1OrUWLECEIVED Chief Nuclear Officer
GENERATIONTIU
Ontario Power Generation
oL.OW'UP
I IFWD
889 Brock Road,Pickeria',y I COPY i iu L iW 3J2 •
CAO COUNCIL . , -
DIRECTORS CORP SERV Corr, R J .-S.
l OES . OFFICE SUST
Mayor Dave Ryan I April 19 201_ -
C&R PLAN&DEV -
City of Pickering 1 ORIGINAL TO: .yam I
One The Esplanade ENG SERV LEGAL&LS COPYTO• ••
Pickering, ON L1V l<?FIRE CLERK f I
- OPER & FAC HUMAN RES
=ice
Dear Mayor Ran . I CORK• • FILE
Y Y , TAKE APR ACT!ON f
I'wish to thank you for meeting with Ontario.Power Generation staff on •tierb.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and on Wednesday,.April 10, 2013 to discuss the
issues and a path forward with regard to Pickering Nuclear Generating Station's
. retirement in 2020, including.shutdown, layup and decommissioning.
.
• I am writing to confirm the OPG commitment to fund a City of Pickering
financial/economic impact and land use,study of the retirement of Pickering
Nuclear Generating Station.
• As you suggested, this study will be managed by the City and will examine the
impacts associated with: •
1. Direct job•losses (OPG employees within the plant and satellites offices
. throughout Pickering) ,
. 2. Indirect job losses (Supply chain of Pickering businesses supporting-OPG) -
3. Land use redevelopment(Restricted uses of the plant for future
redevelopment and investment opportunities) .
4. • Potential loss of tax revenue(s). •
• In 2012 OPG initiated a•process to examine site re-purposing opportunities .
following the end of operation of the current electricity.producing power reactors. •
- We believe the proposed City study and the existing OPG process are •
complementary. Our goal is to continue working with the City as both.efforts .
' progress toward a mutually-agreeable path forward_ , - -
OPG'continues to value the relationship it holds with the City of Pickering, and
.continues to work to conduct our business transparently, openly and in keeping
. with the tenets of strong corporate citizenship within the community.
Again, our thanks and we look forward to continuing to work closely with you•and
• the entire team at the City of Pickering
Kindest Regards,
•
• , -40964,,,,..j__i• .
./
Wayne Robbins, Chief Nuclear Officer
Ontario Power-Generation
401 -
48
ATTACHMENT# C9 TO
REPORT RECEIVFD
V
•
City
OCT 1 0 2013 Menlo
..,.3
PICKERING CITY O PICKERING
uFYDE ELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: Thomas E Melymuk October 9, 2013
Director, City Development
From: Vera A. Felgemacher •
Manager, Supply « Services
Copy:. Chief Planner, City Development.
Senior Planner, Policy
Subject: Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2093
Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the
Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
File: F-5300-001
Request for Proposals were invited from nine (9) companies and an advertisement was posted on the
City's website. One addendum was issued. Five (5) companies responded by the official submission
date and time.
Evaluation of proposals is performed in five (5)stages.
Reference: Part 3, Evaluation of Proposals, Item 3.2 Stages of Proposal Evaluation:
3.2.1 Stage I — Review for Compliance
Stage I will consist of a review to determine which proposals comply with all of the mandatory
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.
3.2.2 Stage II -Scoring
Stage II will consist of a scoring by the City of each qualified proposal on the basis of the rated
criteria.
3.2.3 Stage Ill—Evaluation of Pricing
Stage III will consist of a scoring of the pricing submitted. The evaluation of price will be
undertaken after Stage I and II have been completed.
3.2.4 Stage IV Cumulative Score
At the conclusion of Stage III, all scores from Stage II and Stage III will be combined and the two
(2) highest ranking proponents may be selected for an interview in Stage V.
402
ATTACHMENT# TO
REPORT# P1-N 2y-1,3
32.5 .Stage V— Evaluation of Interview
Stage V will consist of a scoring of:the ir_►terview which will be added to the Stage 1V scoring.-At
the conclusion of Stage V, the highest'rarikiig:proponent will be selected for Contract negotiations
in accordance with Part 4 —Terms and Conditions of the RFP process.
32.6 Tie Score
In the event of a'tie score in Stage V, the selected proponent,will be determined in accordance
' with the City's Purchasing Procedures.
All five (5) proposals will proceed to Stage II.
The following documentation is included to proceed with evaluation:
1. Evaluation Form—Stage l
2. Evaluation Form—Stage 11 (to be used by Evaluation Committee Members)
3. Evaluation Form—Stage II Rating Criteria
4. Copies of Proposals 0
Please co-ordinate.an appropriate date and time for a meeting of the evaluation committee. Each
member should review the submissions carefully according to the rating criteria before the meeting
time.
Please do not disclose any information to enquiring proponents during this time—they will be advised
of tie outcome in due course. Please direct inquiries to Supply& Services.
If you require further information, please feel free to contact me or a member of Supply & Services.
r`�r 3
VAF/jh
Attachments: Evaluation Form— Stage I
Evaluation Form — Stage II
Evaluation. Form— Stage II Rating Criteria
Copies of Proposals.
October 9, 2013 0 Page 2 of 2
Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013
Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
403
ATTACHMENT# TO
REPORT#
Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013
Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the
Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
• -Stage 1 — Evaluation Form
•
Stage I will consist of a review to determine which proposals comply with all of the
mandatory 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.
Proposals are to include the following mandatory requirements:
A. Submission Form (Appendix B) •
B. Rate Bid Form (Appendix C)
C. Reference Form (Appendix D)
D. Acknowledge Addendum No 1 •
E. Table of Contents (Appendix E Item C)
F. Profile (Appendix E Item C)
•
Company Item Item .Item Item Item Item
A B C D E F •
Ernst & Young ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ •
•
HDR Corporation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
•
IBI Group ✓ . ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ V •
PricewaterhouseCoopers ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Watson &Associates ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ . ✓
•
•
•
•
•
404
. ' .
. .
• .
• • • Request foi ..oposal No. RFP-11-2013 • •
Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic impacts of the Retirement of • .
the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station . , •
Evaluation Form — Stage II
. . ,
Team & Methodology Quality of •
• Company Total
Experience & Delivery . Response • Comments •
. Vinnntil ' ffilltr 1 '' 5
PFIRAVWP"rrrgrlRttPRPrtVrF.MrpWrrrrfirek, ‘ . 1 „.,1‘,.,,,,, „ 1,,- , ,._,itv lid ,, f,
, . ok:reg‘ .i.hiikkini„,,,gtagnaokanc.44644:14,416,,,a34,,Titt460 ,4dpihigi.14,,,,,,i,4,010,a400:,ysimAdwabostigictidt,:01„,„iv. v, LiAtiow
. •. .
Ernst•&Young
. . .
•
HDR Corporation
. •
• •
. .
1BI Group • 3.-0 x=
. -,,, ......4
• • • c,
PricewaterhouseCoopers
. . m
c) • -4
c..n •
.. Watson &Associates . . . . •r•
• • ,
,r1Q3
- ,
• -t.
•
. .
• • , • . ;6,
. • • : -1
• • a
•
• . • ,
• • . ,
Committee Member . • Date
•
•
Print Name - • Signature .
• .
•
. .
- .
. . . .
. • • . .
. .
• .
• • . .. . • • • .
. . • . .
. ,
. . • ,
•
. • •
. .
• • • .
. . . •
• .
•
ATTACHMENT# TO
REPORT# P<!U 2 11-1 _ .
Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013
Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the
Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
D. 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 Vl/eightmg (Po nts ;Minim um
1 f Threshold
Team & Experience 30 N/A
Experience on Similar Projects - and
Qualifications
Project Team Overview
Methodology & Delivery 35 N/A
Understanding of Project
Work Plan, Schedule and Deliverables
- Quality of Response. 20 N/A
Quality of References
Quality of Proposal and Alignment to REP
Price 15 N/A
Cost and Pricing Assessment
Total Points 100 - N/A
Team & Experience = 30 Points
Experience on Similar Projects and Qualifications:
Provide three (3) relevant examples of past projects within the last five (5) years that are
comparable in scope and magnitude. 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, contacts and up-to-date contact phone
numbers. Please advise the references as the City may be contacting them.
Project Team Overview:
It is important that the Work be provided by a staff team that can demonstrate
knowledge of, and experience in providing similar services for projects of comparable
nature, size and scope. In particular, the Proponent should provide an overview of the
key personnel who would be primarily involved in the project and include the following:
a. •Identify the prime firm submitting the Proposal and the sub-consultant that will be
assembled to undertake the work;
b. The name, title, mailing address, phone number, fax number and e-mail of the
Project Leader;
•
406
ATTACHMENT#_ TO
REPORT 2q-'13
Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013
• Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the
Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
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 written approval
from the City of Pickering and the Project Manager; and
e. Organizational chart that clearly defines the chain of command for each
individual with the team.
Methodology And Delivery = 35 Points
•
Understanding of Project:
The Proposal shall include information that provides:
• a. Information that the Proponent understands the objectives and requirements of
this project; Proponents must relate these objectives to past experience or
expertise of the Proponent and/or their team;
b. Identification of"value-added" services brought by the Proponent's team; and
c. A summary of the risks, problems or issues associated with the Work and how
they will be mitigated.
•
Work Plan, Schedule and Deliverables:
The Proponent is to articulate, clearly and concisely, the following:
a. An indication of how soon the Proponent can commence the work;
• b. A detailed work plan indicating the method, tasks, deliverables;
c. A schedule that identifies Work phases (by Gantt Chart or other similar
illustration) including key dates for major deliverables (draft report, final report) in
the Proponent's detailed work plan;
d. Proposed staffing roles and the amount of time, shown in hours, they will be
dedicated to this project; and
e. State the assumptions regarding the roles and involvement of the City staff.
•
Quality of Response = 20 Points
Quality of References:
Relevance of projects similar in scope and value completed over the last five (5) years.
Complete Appendix D — Reference Form.
Quality of Proposal and Alignment to RFP:
Presentation of proposal, examples, details, content organization, how well instructions
are followed and how closely the proposal aligns with stated objectives of the RFP.
407
#. 3 TO
R'WPoR T y L-1�4 24-13
. .
phi
Cl='Y OF Pl CI�ERI
-Kg
_ _
To: Thomas E. Melymuk October 18, 2013
Director, City Development
From:. Vera A. Felgemacher
Manager, Supply & Services
Copy: Senior Planner - Policy
Subject: Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013
Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the
Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
File: F-5300-001
Further to memos dated October 9, 2013, and October 18, 2013, five (5) proposals proceeded to
Stage II of the evaluation process. Each member of the Evaluation Committee has completed
evaluating the five (5) proposals, completing Stage II of the evaluation process.
In Stage I11 of the evaluation process, a scoring of the pricing was performed and combined for an
overall score of each proposal_
During Stage IV, Cumulative Score, all scores were combined and in accordance with Part 3 —
Evaluation of Proposals., Item 3.2.4, at the conclusion of Stage III, all scores from Stage 11 and Stage III
were combined providing a highest ranking proponent. In accordance with Part 3 Evaluation of
Proposals, Item 3.2.4 Stage IV Cumulative Score, the two (2) highest ranking proponents may be
selected for an interview in Stage V_ Supply & Services has been advised that an interview is not
necessary.
In conclusion, the highest ranking proponent selected for contract negotiations in accordance with
Part 4, Terms and Conditions of the RFP process is I-IDR Corporation with a lump sum price of
$79,840.00 (HST extra).
In accordance with Purchasing Policy Procedure PUR 010-001 Item 10.04 (a) "An award up to
$50,00.0 is subject to the approval of the Treasurer and the CAO" and (b),"An award over$50,000 is
subject to the additional approval of Council", please prepare a Report to Council to include the
following items:
(a) the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged;
(b) the budget amount(s) assigned thereto;
(c) Treasurer's confirmation of funding;
(d) related departmental approvals; and
(e) related comments specific to the project.
408
ATTACHMENT# 3 TO
. REPORT # • 25/-13
Please do not disclose any information to enquiring proponents during this time—they will be
ad ised of the outcome in due course. Please direct enquires to Supply & Services.
LA. •97 .
VAFfjh _
•
October 18, 2013 Page 2 of 2
Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013
Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of.the Retirement of the
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
409