HomeMy WebLinkAboutCR 09-16 City Report to
; _4.,;;.,�- v Executive Committee
I Report Number: CR 09-16
Date: June 20, 2016
From: Marisa Carpino
Director, Culture & Recreation
Subject: Architectural & Engineering Consulting Services for the New Fire Hall to
service Seaton
- Request for Proposal No. RFP-6-2016
- File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Proposal No. RFP-6-2016 submitted by Thomas Brown Architects in the
amount of$310,750.00 (HST included) be accepted;
2. That the total gross project cost of$370,640.00 (HST included), including the
amount of the proposal and other associated costs, and the total net project cost
of$333,773.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved;
3. That Council authorize the Division Head, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net
project cost of$333,773.00 as follows:
a) The sum of$8,345.00 as provided for in the 2016 Capital Budget Fire
Services to be funded by a transfer from DC's — City's Share Reserve;
b) The sum of $325,428.00 to be funded by a transfer from Development
Charges — Fire Protection Reserve Fund; and
4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The City is planning the design and construction of a new
Fire Hall on part of a 4 acre property owned by the City on the North West corner of
Brock Road and Zents Drive in the City of Pickering. The new Fire Hall will serve the
new Seaton developments.
The approved 2016 capital budget included funds for the selection of Design Consultant
Services to complete the Architectural & Engineering design of the new Fire Hall by the
end of 2016. Four design consultants with the necessary experience were pre-qualified
in April 2016 through Request for Proposal No. RFP-7-2016. Subsequently, the pre-
qualified design consultants were invited to submit a proposal to Request for Proposal
No. RFP-6-2016 for Architectural & Engineering Consulting Services of the New Fire
Hall which closed on May 19, 2016.
Report CR 09-16 June 20, 2016
•
Subject: Architectural & Engineering Consulting Services
for the New Fire Hall to service Seaton Page 2
•
The proposal submitted by Thomas Brown Architects in the amount of $310,750.00
(HST included) is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated
to be $370,640.00 and the total net project cost is estimated at $333,773.00 (het of HST
rebate).
Financial Implications:
1. Proposal Amount
Proposal No. RFP-6-2016 $275,000.00
HST (13%) 35,750.00
Total Gross Proposal Cost $310,750.00
2. Estimated Project Costing Summary
RFP-6-2016 $275,000.00
Miscellaneous Costs 5,000.00
Commissioning 20,000.00
Contingency 28,000.00
Total Cost $328,000.00
HST (13%) 42,640.00
Total Gross Project Costs $370,640.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (36,867.00)
Total Net Project Costs $333,773.00
3. Approved Source of Funds
2016 Capital Budget— Fire Services
Approved Code Source of Funds Budget Required
5340.1602.6430 DC's - City Share Reserve $ 8,913.00 $ 8,345.00
DC — Fire Protection Reserve Fund 347,587.00 325,428.00
Total Funds $356,500.00 $333,773.00
Project Cost under (over) approved funds by ($22,727.00)
Report CR 09-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: Architectural & Engineering Consulting Services
for the New Fire Hall to service Seaton Page 3
Discussion: The City intends to add a new Fire Hall to service Seaton on a City owned
site at the corner of Zents Drive and Brock Road. It is anticipated that the new facility will
consist of a single-storey fire hall, with a building footprint of approximately 9,000 square
feet.
Facility features include:
• Slab on grade construction (no basement);
• Apparatus bay to accommodate two interior tandem truck bays (up to 4 trucks) with
drive-through capability;
• Accommodations for up to 8 full-time staff (2 crews of 4 firefighters each);
• Necessary spaces for offices, kitchen, fitness, locker rooms etc. to support an
operational independent fire hall;
• Staff and visitor parking, and driveway configuration to provide access and sufficient
space for the parking of vehicles at the front and rear of the building;
• Emergency road access to Brock Road directly from the rear parking area;
• Emergency generator;
• Fenced accessory building for waste bins and exterior storage;
• All required utilities, services, hard and soft landscaping, necessary for a functional
and compliant site plan; and
• The facility will comply with Post Disaster Design requirements.
Construction is planned to be completed around 2019, subject to the pace of
construction of the Seaton developments. Design will start in summer 2016 and be
completed by the end of 2016 to enable tendering, award and the start of construction in
spring 2017, at the earliest.
Request for Proposal No. RFP 7-2016 was prepared as a Pre-qualification of
Architectural & Engineering Design Services — New Fire Hall to service Seaton and
advertised on the City's website and closed on Thursday, March 3, 2016. Four design
consultants were pre-qualified and subsequently invited to submit a proposal to Request
for Proposal No. RFP-6-2016 Architectural & Engineering Consulting Services — New
Fire Hall to service Seaton which closed on Thursday, May 19, 2016. Two of the pre-
qualified consultants submitted a proposal.Thomas Brown Architects is the highest
ranking proponent.
The Health & Safety Policy, the current WSIB Workplace Injury Summary Report and
Clearance Certificate, confirmation of Ministry of Labour, Health and Safety Awareness
Training certificates for every worker and supervisor who will be working on this project,
as submitted by Thomas Brown Architects, have been reviewed by the Coordinator,
Human Resources and are deemed acceptable. The Certificate of Insurance is deemed
acceptable to Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit. In conjunction with the foregoing
approvals, staff have reviewed the previous work experience of Thomas Brown
Architects, the references provided and the proposal is deemed acceptable.
Report CR 09-16 June 20, 2016
Subject: Architectural & Engineering Consulting Services
for the New Fire Hall to service Seaton Page 4
Upon careful examination of all proposals and relevant documents received, the Culture
& Recreation Department recommends the acceptance of Proposal No. RFP-6-2016
submitted by Thomas Brown Architects in the amount of$310,750.00 (HST included)
and that the total net project cost of$333,773.00 be approved.
Attachments:
1. Supply & Services Memorandum dated May 31, 2016.
2. Location Map.
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
(I): -
Vince Plouffe Marisa Ca in
Supervisor, Facilities Operations Director, Culture & Recreation
•
H ,,,
Brian I. 14 -Id Stan Karwowski
Manaoer, Facilities Operations Division Head, Finance & Treasurer
0 i '/Il
\ I
era A. Fel•emacher i( John Hagg
Manager, Supply & Services I Fire Chief
BD:mc '
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering Cit ouncil/
fl / 3i Zoi6
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
ATTACHMENT# 1 TO REPORT# C- 09— t (c)
Citfq 0,4
Memo
To: Marisa Carpino May 31, 2016
Director, Culture & Recreation
From: Vera A. Felgemacher
Manager, Supply & Services
Copy: Brian Duffield, Manager, Facilities Operations
Supervisor, Supply & Services
Subject: Proposal No. RFP-6-2016
Architectural & Engineering Consulting Services— New Fire Hall
Closing Date: Thursday, May 19, 2016
- File: F-5300-001
Further to earlier memo dated May 31, 2016, two proposals proceeded to Stage II evaluation.
The Evaluation Committee, consisting of City Staff from Culture & Recreation and Pickering Fire
Services, conducted independent evaluations of the proposals. A summary of average scores
were completed and a copy is attached.
In accordance with Item 2.5 Stage IV- Cumulative Score, all scores from Stage II and Stage III
have been added together, the proponents ranked based on their total scores, and may be
selected to attend an interview in Stage IV. The Evaluation Committee has confirmed that the
Stage V - Interview, will not be required.
Thomas Brown Architects is the highest ranking proponent in the amount of$275,000.00
plus HST. The highest ranking proponent may be selected for contract negotiations. Please
advise if this is required.
A budget of$356,500.00 was provided to Supply & Services for this procurement.
In accordance with Material Disclosures Item 6, as a pre-condition of award, the selected
proponent—Thomas Brown Architects -will be required to provide the following documents for
review. Please advise if we are to proceed with this task.
(a) A copy of the Health and Safety Policy to be used on this project (currently dated
and signed);
(b) A copy of the current Workplace Injury Summary Report issued by Workplace Safety
& Insurance Board (in lieu of the Workplace Injury Summary Report document, a
copy of the current CAD 7, NEER, or MAP reports may be submitted);
(c) A copy of the current Clearance Certificate issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance
Board;
(d) Copies of Ontario Ministry of Labour, Health and Safety Awareness Training
certificates for every worker and supervisor who will be working on this project;and
(e) The City's certificate of insurance or approved alternative form shall be completed by
•
the Proponent's agent, broker or insurer
In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.04, where written proposals are obtained by the
Manager in accordance with procedures set out in Section 06 and funds are available in the
approved budget;
(c) An award over$50,000 is subject to the additional approval of Council.
Please include the following items in your Report to Council:
1. if Items (a) through (d) noted above are acceptable to the Co-ordinator, Health & Safety or
designate;
2. if Item (e) is acceptable to the Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit;
3. any past work experience with the highest ranking proponent Thomas Brown Architects
including work location;
4. the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged;
5. the budget amount(s) assigned thereto;
6. Treasurer's confirmation of funding;
7. related departmental approvals; and
8. related comments specific to the project.
Upon receiving Council's approval, an approved "on-line" requisition will be required to proceed.
Do not disclose any information to enquiries during this time. The Proponent will be advised
of the outcome in due course.
If you require further information, please feel free to contact me or a member of Supply &
irServices.
•
VAF/sb
attachments
•
Request for Proposal No. RFP-6-2016
•Architectural & Engineering Consulting Page 2 of 2
Services — New Fire Hall
l
` ° �~1 ' , ATTAC HMENT# 1 TO REPORT# L:7
' .v.1-.--1.'—P.ja!--- _ ...?)..... ....? Memo
_ _
liellciatili1C
To: Marisa Carpino May 31, 2016
Director, Culture & Recreation
From: Vera A. Felgemacher
Manager, Supply & Services
Copy: Brian Duffield, Manager, Facilities Operations
John Hagg, Fire Chief
Fred Hyland, Deputy Fire Chief
Vince Plouffe, Supervisor, Facilities Operations
Supervisor, Supply & Services .
Subject: Proposal No. RFP-6-2016
Architectural & Engineering Consulting Services — New Fire Hall
Closing Date: Thursday, May 19, 2016
- File: F-5300-001
Terms of reference for RFP-6-2016 -Architectural & Engineering Consulting Services — New Fire
Hall were emailed to the four pre-qualified vendors from RFP-7-2016 - Pre-Qualification of
Architectural and Engineering Design Services - New Fire Hall. Two companies have submitted a
proposal.
Stage 1 - Evaluation of Submission Requirements — has been completed, and two proposals are
available for consideration. Hard copies of the proposals have been forwarded via the Manager,
Facilities Operations to the Evaluation Committee, along with the criteria to be used and the
evaluation form. Each member of the evaluation committee is to carefully review the submissions
and score each response against the criteria and sign the form.
Attachments previously forwarded:
1: Stage I — Evaluation of Submission Requirements
2. Evaluation Form
3. Stage II —Evaluation Criteria
4. Copy of the Terms of Reference
5. Copy of the proposals received
Forward the completed evaluation form to Sue Burgess, Buyer. In accordance with Purchasing
Procedures 14.02 Item 17, Committee members' figures for each Respondent will be totaled to
establish an average score. A summary of average scores will be prepared for discussion at a meeting
set up for the Evaluation Committee. .
Please direct enquiries to Supply & Services. Respondents will be advised of the outcome when the
c tract has been awarded.
If u require further information, please contact me, or a member of Supply & Services.
VAF/s
Attachment (0
Architecturaengineering Consulting Servicer New Fire Hall
RFP-6-2016
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 submission
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. Rate Bid Form (Appendix C)
C. Five (5) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy
•
Company Item Item B Item C
Thomas Brown Architects X — Incorrect Pricing V
Inc.
Total
KNYMH Inc. V X— Incorrect Pricing V
Total
i �
c. p
Architectural & Engineering Consulting Services — New Fire Hall
RFP-6-2016
Stage II - Evaluation of Rated Criteria
Stage ll will consist of a scoring on the basis of the Rated Criteria. Subject to the Terms
of Reference and Governing Law, the top-ranked proponent as established under the
evaluation will be selected to enter into a contract for the provision of the Deliverables.
The selected proponent will be expected to enter into a contract within the timeframe
specified in the selection notice. Failure to do so may, among other things; result in the
disqualification of the proponent and the selection of another proponent, or the
cancellation of the.RFP.
The following is an overview of the categories and weighting for the rated criteria of the
RFP.
Appendix D — Request for Proposals Particulars
D. Rated Criteria
The following is an overview of the categories and weighting for the rated criteria of the
Request for Proposals. Proponents who do not meet a minimum threshold score for a
category will not proceed to the next stage of the evaluation process.
Minimum
Rated Criteria Category Weighting (Points) Threshold
Stage 11
Understanding of Project 15 7
Work Plan and Deliverables 30 15
Quality of Proposal 5 3
Subtotal: 50 25
Stage Ill
Pricing Table #1 Project Cost 40 N/A
Pricing Table#2 Professional Fees - 5 N/A
Hourly Rates (Avg.)
Pricing Table#3 Sub Consultant Fees - 5 N/A
•Hourly Rates (Avg.)
Total Points 100
Stage V
Interview (if required) 20 N/A
Total Possible Points Stages I —V 120
Suggested Proposal Content for the Evaluation of Rated Criteria
Understanding of Project = 15 Points
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;
s..
_ b. Identification of"value-added" services brought by the Proponent's team; and
c. A summary of the risks, concerns or issues associated with the Work and how they
will be mitigated.
Work Plan and Deliverables = 30 Points
The Proponent is to articulate, clearly and concisely, the following:
a. An indication of how soon the Proponent can begin the work;
b. A detailed work plan indicating the method, tasks and deliverables;
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 documents, tendering, construction administration and post construction) in
the Proponent's detailed work plan;
d. Proposed staffing roles and the amount of time, shown in hours, that they will be
dedicated to this project;
e. Detail how the Proponent will manage their fee and deliverables to ensure that there
are no, or minimal, claims for extra fees;
f. Identification of the experience/past projects of the cost Consultant and their success
rate;
g. State the assumptions regarding the roles and involvement of City staff;
h. Summary of quality assurance manual and procedures; and
i. Explicitly identify any Deliverables and/or Services which are a part of the RFP but are
being excluded by the Company during the term of the contract.
Quality of Proposal —Total Points = 5
Presentation of proposal, examples, details, content organization and how well
instructions are followed.
Pricing-Total Points = 50
Provide a lump sum price (excluding HST) for Architectural & Engineering Design
Services for the new Fire Hall and as further described in Appendix D — Request for
Proposals Particulars, Section A— Deliverables.
Pricing will be scored based on a relative pricing formula using the Total Project Cost
set out in the Pricing Form, Pricing Table #1 and the average of all hourly rates provided
in Pricing Table #2 and Pricing Table #3.
Interview Evaluation Criteria — Total Points = 20
If required, and at the completion of Stage IV evaluation, up to three (3) of the highest-
ranked Proponents may be selected for an interview. The City and the selected
Proponents will schedule these interviews, and Proponents will be given sufficient time
to prepare. Interview questions shall be provided only to those Proponents who have
been chosen.
RFP-6-2016 Page 2 of 3
Architectural & Engineering Consulting Services - New Fire Hall
r
Interviews shall be scored by representatives of the Evaluation Committee, and shall
follow this general format:
a. Introductions
b. Questions from Evaluation Committee
c. Answers from Proponents
•
•
•
•
•
RFP-6-2016 Page 3 of 3
Architectural & Engineering'Consulting Services - New Fire Hall
•
r
N
c
E
E
0
U
O
r
CO ■
ra
W
as
I
d
L_
t..i.d
a)
Z 1
I 3N 0o '_
U) d c O •- w ;a !Q
� �' = U
co
y
ai a � � LL oa Z
C x v
O = F- U
O a)
or
Q) Y _
N
C p
• / ! R
.�
d •y d
Z a) a E A > ID
•C . `d U` � a _
W
o
°d .r c C) d yy
ca 1 L > L F� I •O U ' v 1 Z
w a a. ,
a • ,
d w
a o m
t Z. 8
o Q. h !M
Q = �'
d
R .n v E
y
F- i
d 4 0 Iin Z
CL •
I- M
`o o a
a) c
a
d c
Ce L° o in N.
L n`.
as C
o
4 f/1 =
d C. TS U JD
C a - -C- c 0o to
o HI to 5 Q (6 N o 1_ L a. s
Y F- Q E c ai
o us f6
U a
ATTACHMENT#, a TO REPORT# 0 _ 09-
" .77 \
O,,P
■ ,,
R OP O ..----SS\ON
FpU i �� a
•
t ` -',--":\r
i �P �
a
-u O\V C r ✓'
, \ V ice,,. ., 2�•
\ \5 G. JCL " �. _G�t '.r`l
Ey
i
' E 4 FIRE.HA
w
riE . ZE �� /� ways
,` ,,\,, - .. 0 - AMP
/{ i A , d v .5;.
R
�,Y'"- Y P IE ! pm% t t1oo-c) • .2�;
.( \` gRUN • ,,,\.\\:".,:40,,‘,,;:•. �, r SCREE :� P)A`�� .
3_ p
k Vtc� Rapp C� TN ayo LAPS \
i „..,,..„\;...>,,,
..'' A"1.,,,-24,\ \1. ..T i.1, �y�
` '.' V ‘E. ; 1 i r ,E1
\ - m \. .sip , \\'\`\. 1 SCR
01AI
1 y
r\ � �.. %rr - yE
/ \ 111
/ \
4 T
ENGINEERING&PUBLIC ATTACHMENT FOR CULTURE & �+,��
WORKS DEPARTMENT `""'f°�
CAPITAL PROJECTS& RECREATION REPORT CR 09-16 �� 1.1
INFRASTRUCTURE ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING CONSULTING -
S N.T.S June 1 /2016 SERVICES FOR THE NEW FIRE HALL U CO rS a x4110 C