The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAO 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:: ~š: 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