Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFSD-022-24Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: May 6, 2024 Report Number: FSD-022-24 Authored by: David Ferguson Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: GG-075-24File Number: RFP2024-2 Report Subject: Engineering Services for Multiple Bridge and Culvert Replacements Recommendations: 1.That Report FSD-022-24, and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2.That the proposal received from Cima Canada Inc. being the most responsive bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of RFP2024-2 be awarded the contract for the provision of Engineering Services for Multiple Bridge and Culvert Replacements for the specific locations highlighted in Section 1.3 of the report; 3.That the funds required for this project in the amount of $412,152.42 (Net HST Rebate) be funded from the approved budget; 4.That subject to municipal resources at the time of construction, budget approval and construction contract award, CIMA Canada Inc. be authorized to provide the required Inspection and Contract Administration at a maximum cost of $218,580.48 (net HST Rebate); and 5.That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-022-24, and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report FSD-022-24 Report Overview To request approval to award RFP2024-2 to the most responsive proponent to provide Engineering Services for Multiple Bridge and Culvert Replacements. 1. Background 1.1 The Municipality of Clarington (Municipality) requires the assistance of a qualified firm to provide Engineering Services for Multiple Bridge and Culvert Replacements. 1.2 A Request for Proposal (RFP) was drafted to allow the Municipality to select a qualified Engineering Services Consultant with the skills, resources, and experience necessary to provide a cost-effective design, tender preparation, construction inspection, and contract administration services for the replacement of one (1) bridge and five (5) culverts within the Municipality of Clarington. 1.3 The various locations of bridges and culverts being replaced are as follows:  Culvert 98513 – East Townline Road between Regional Hwy. 2 and Hwy. 401  Culvert 98535 – Best Road between Concession Road 8 and Hwy. 407  Culvert 98533 – Concession Road 7 between Best Road and Hwy. 35/115  Structure 99077 – Hancock Road between Nash Road and Regional Hwy. 2  Culvert 99125 – West Townline Road between Concession Road 9 and Regional Road 9  Culvert 99525 – Concession Road 6 between Acres Road and Darlington-Clarke Townline Road 1.4 East Townline Road and West Townline Road are boundary roads with the adjacent Municipality of Port Hope and City of Oshawa, respectively. Therefore, Culverts 98513 and 99125 will be eligible for partial cost recovery through the Municipality’s Boundary Road Agreements. As outlined in these agreements, infrastructure replacement costs of this nature shall be split in equal parts between each Municipality that share the subject boundary road. 1.5 The RFP was split into two Parts. Part 1 included the detailed design and tendering for the bridges and culverts and Part 2 included provisional inspection and contract administration services during construction. Part 2 of this contract is subject to Council budget and contract approval for the construction of this project. Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report FSD-022-24 1.6 RFP2024-2 was issued by the Purchasing Services Division and advertised electronically on the Municipality’s website. The RFP was structured on a two-envelope system with price being an evaluated factor. 2. Analysis 2.1 The RFP closed on February 23, 2024. 2.2 The RFP stipulated, among other things, that the proponents were to provide a description of the Firm/Consulting team, key qualifications, firm profile, highlights of past service and experience of team members with projects of similar size, nature and complexity, and demonstrate an understanding of the Municipality’s requirements. 2.3 Twenty-two companies downloaded the document, and eight proposals were received (refer to Attachment 1) by the stipulated closing date and time. Submissions were reviewed to ensure that they met the Phase 1 - Mandatory Requirements. Two submissions received did not meet the mandatory requirements and were deemed non - complaint. Six proposals met the mandatory requirements and were deemed compliant. The six compliant proposals were distributed to the evaluation committee for review, evaluation, and scoring. 2.4 The technical proposals were evaluated and scored independently by the members of the evaluation committee in accordance with the established criteria as outlined in the RFP. The evaluation committee was comprised of staff from the Planning and Infrastructure Services Department. 2.5 The evaluation committee met to review and agree upon the overall scores for each proposal. Some of the areas on which the submissions were evaluated were as follows:  The Proponent’s understanding of the Municipality’s requirements;  Highlights of services provided performing similar work on projects of comparable nature, size, and scope in a municipality of similar population size;  Proposed team’s experience with projects similar in size and nature;  A methodology describing the Proponent’s project management approach, work plan, goals, objectives, and methods of communication to be utilized to meet the requested deadlines; and  A proposed solution including a detailed work plan indicating the project method, schedule, Gantt chart, tasks and deliverables showing an estimated overall timeline of the project. 2.6 Upon completion of the evaluation, four submissions met the established passing threshold of 80 percent for Phase 2—Technical Submission and moved to Phase 3— Pricing. The evaluation committee determined that a presentation from the short-listed proponents would not be required. Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report FSD-022-24 2.7 The pricing envelopes were opened, reviewed and scored as stipulated in the RFP document. 2.8 The RFP was structured to award the detailed design and tendering for the bridges and culverts with the option to include inspection and contract administration services during construction. 2.9 The inspection and contract administration was bid as a provisional item dependent on the construction budget and contract being approved by Council. The amendment to include Part 2 Inspection and Contract Administration will be subject to budget availability, Council approval of the construction contract and Municipal resources at the time of award. 2.10 Upon completion of the evaluation scoring, the recommendation is to award the contract for this work to the highest-ranked proponent, Cima Canada Inc. 2.11 Cima Canada Inc. has provided Engineering Services to the Municipality in the past, and as such, a reference check was not required. 3. Financial Considerations 3.1 The Proponents provided provisional pricing for the inclusion of Inspection and Contract Administration. The fees are allocated between the two items is as follows: Part 1 – Lump Sum for Detailed Design and Tendering $412,152 Total net HST rebate Part 2 – Provisional Item: Lump Sum for Inspection and Contract Administration $218,580 Total net HST rebate 3.2 The funding required for Part 1 of this contract award is up to $412,152.42 (Net HST Rebate) and will be funded from the following account: Description Account Number Amount Structures Rehabilitation 110‐50‐330‐83275‐7401 $252,152 Oshawa Cost Recovery (99125) 110‐50‐330‐83275‐7402 50,000 Port Hope Cost Recovery (98513) 110‐50‐330‐83275‐7402 20,000 Hancock Rd. Box Culvert (99077) 110-32-330-83365-7401 90,000 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report FSD-022-24 3.3 Part 2- Inspection and contract administration for the project was included in the issued RFP as a provisional item in addition to the pricing requested to complete the design and tendering work. There are cost and quality efficiencies when the contract administration and inspection are performed by the same consultant as the design of the capital work. Contract administration and inspection costs will be included in the 2025-2027 multi-year capital budget. Approval of the award of the contract for this work is subject to the project receiving budgetary approval in a subsequent year. 3.4 The funding required for Part 2 of this contract in the amount of $218,580 (net HST rebate) will be required to complete inspection and contract administration for the project and will be identified in a future budget submission. 4. Strategic Plan 4.1 Not Applicable 5. Concurrence This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services who concurs with the recommendations. 6. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Cima Canada Inc. be awarded the contract for the provision of Engineering Services for Multiple Bridge and Culvert Replacements. Staff Contact: David Ferguson, Purchasing Manager, 905-623-3379 Ext. 2209 or dferguson@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Summary of Proposals Received Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report FSD-022-24 Attachment 1 - Summary of Proposals Received Municipality of Clarington RFP2024-2– Engineering Services Multiple Bridge and Culvert Replacements Proposals Received Bidder CIMA Canada Inc. D.M. Willis GHD Ltd. The Greer Galloway Group Inc. Jewell Engineering Inc. Q&E Engineering Inc. * REMISZ Consulting * TSI Inc. Note: Companies with * were deemed non-compliant.