The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOD-015-13 Addendum Cladiwa REPORT CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 27, 2013 Resolution#: ' By-law#: - -1 Report#: Addendum #1 to File#: COD-015-13 Subject: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP2013-4, ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES — CLARINGTON FITNESS CENTRE RENOVATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report COD-015-13 be received; 2. THAT Addendum #1 to Report COD-015-13 be received; 3. THAT Barry*Bryan &Associates, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of $201,942.72 (net of H.S.T. Rebate), being the highest ranked proposal meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of RFP2013-4 be awarded the contract for the provision of Architectural Services for the Renovation of Clarington Fitness Centre, as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Community Services Department; and 4. THAT the funds required in the amount of$201,942.72 (which includes Architectural design, specifications for tender, contract administration and disbursements and net HST rebate) be drawn from the Community Services Department Capital Account#110- 42-421-84203-7401. Submitted b Reviewed by: F NCarie Marano, H.B.Sc., AMCT, Franklin Wu, MAOM Director of Corporate Services Chief Administrative Officer Nancy Taylor, BBA., CPA, CA, Director of Finance/Treasurer M M\J D B\mc CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 REPORT NO.: Addendum #1 to COD-015-13 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Report COD-015-13 to the General Purpose and Administration Committee was reviewed at the May 6, 2013 meeting and referred to Staff for a report providing the evaluations, criteria and ranking for consideration at the May 27, 2013 General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting. Copies of Report COD- 015-13 and Committee Resolution #GPA-314-13 are appended as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. 1.2 Request for Proposal #RFP2013-4 was issued and publicly advertised on the Clarington and Ontario Public Buyers websites. As noted in the report, 41 firms downloaded the bid document and, 12 firms submitted proposals. 1.3 Further to the information provided in the original report and to better indicate the evaluation process and criteria, a copy of the evaluation criteria provided with the bid document is appended as Attachment #3. 1.4 It is a requirement in the public sector that the evaluation criteria be provided as part of the RFP document so bidders are aware of the criteria and the weighting system. Once established and bids close, the criteria or weighting cannot be changed and it is incumbent on the agency to conduct the evaluation using only the criteria issued with the document. 2. ANALYSIS 2.1 It is important to note that the RFP process is significantly different than the tender process. 2.2 With the tender process the specifications for the project or requirement are provided along with all of the terms and conditions for the project. Bidders have the opportunity to bid but must bid to meet the specification and agree to the terms and conditions. To do otherwise will result in a non-compliant and rejected bid. 2.3 With an RFP, the definition is key to understanding the process. A Request for Proposal is a formal invitation to submit an offer. "The offer is to provide a solution to a problem or a need that the organization has identified. An RFP is a procurement process in which the judgement of the supplier's experience, qualifications and solution may take precedence over price."(1) 2.4 For this RFP, the submissions were reviewed and rated by a committee comprised of representatives from the Community Services Department and Purchasing Services. Each member reviewed all 12 submissions and attended the evaluation meeting prepared to discuss the proposals in detail and rate the criteria according to the guidelines. Each element in Part A of the Evaluation criteria is discussed in detail for each proposal and a consensus rating is reached for each component. Each rating is then weighted to determine the actual score for this part of the process. The one exception to the foregoing process is the REPORT NO.: Addendum #1 to COD-01 5-13 PACE 3 method used to rate the pricing. In this case the rating is established using a standard formula which assigns a total score of 5 for the lowest price and higher prices are rated using the formula resulting in a rating between 0.01 to 4.9. The weight is then applied to the rating for an actual score. Bidders achieving a score of 70% move on to the next phase of the process —the interview and if necessary the checking of references. 2.5 For clarification, there are alternatives when calling for proposals. The method used for this proposal revealed the price at the opening of bids whereas and the second method, which is called the 2 Envelope System, the proposal less the price is submitted in envelope #1 and the pricing details are submitted in envelope #2. Bidders achieving a predetermined score on the proposal (Envelope #1) will have their Envelope #2 opened and the bid recorded and rated. Bidders who do not achieve the minimum score will have their Envelope #2 returned unopened. 2.6 The accepted standard for RFPs is that the overall high scoring proposal is the proposal recommended. Please note that this requirement is covered under Section 17, Purchasing By-law 2010-112 which reads as follows: "It is the Corporation's general policy to select the Proposal that earns the highest ranked score and meets the requirements of the RFP based on qualitative, technical and pricing considerations." 3. COMMENTS 3.1 The foregoing section provided an outline of the RFP process and the criteria. However, it did not address the Committee's request for additional information on the evaluations and ranking of the proposals. 3.2 For a number of reasons we traditionally do not release the rating on RFPs in a public manner. When dealing with a debriefing of proponents we will advise individual proponents of areas of where the ranking was lower and the reason for the ranking; for example a firm may have only a limited amount of experience or the submission was limited in detail. As noted, each of the components in the Evaluation Criteria are considered and strengths and weakness considered. 3.3 There is an economic reason for not publishing the detailed results. The criteria and the ratings are unique to the project at hand and must be considered accordingly. To publish the ranking and the rating of proponents exposes the data which can be misconstrued as a statement of competence or ability when the rating applies only to the project at hand. A low ranked bidder on one project may well score high on another similar project for any number of reasons; lessons learned, different criteria and weighting or different pricing strategy. REPORT NO.: Addendum #1 to COD-015-13 PAGE 4 . CONCURRENCE 4.1 This report has been reviewed by Joseph Caruana, Director of Community Services who concurs with the recommendations. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 That the highest ranked proponent, Barry Bryan Associates (1991) Ltd. be recommended as the successful proponent for the provision of architectural services for the Renovation of the Clarington Fitness Centre. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives X Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Jerry Barber, Manager of Purchasing Attachments: Attachment 1 - Report COD-015-13 Attachment 2 - Resolution #GPA-314-13 Attachment 3 - Evaluation Criteria Endnote: c'> The Request for Proposal Handbook, (Third Addition) Michael Asner List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: NONE Attachment#1 to Addendum# 1 to Report mooft COD-015-13 ciff- REPORT CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT (Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 6, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: COD-015-13 File#: Subject: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP2013-4, ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES CLARINGTON FITNESS CENTRE RENOVATION RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report COD-015-13 be received; 2. THAT Barry*Bryan & Associates, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of $201,942.72 (net of H.S.T. Rebate), being the highest ranked proposal meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of RFP2013-4 be awarded the contract for the provision of Architectural Services for the Renovation of Clarington Fitness Centre, as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Community Services Department; 3. THAT the funds required in the amount of $201,942.72 (which includes Architectural design, specifications for tender, contract administration and disbursements and net HST rebate) be drawn from the following Community Services Department Capital Account: Account: 110=42-421-84203-7401 ...................:..................................................$201,942.72 u if Submitted b Reviewed by: Marie Marano, H.B.Sc., Franklin Wu, Director of Corpopte Services Chief Administrative Officer ADZ Nancy Taylor,413A, CPA, CA, Director of Finance/Treasurer MM\JDB\sm CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 REPORT NO.: COD-015-13 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Request for Proposal specifications were provided by Community Services Department. Request for Proposal RFP2013-4 Architectural Services — Renovations at Clarington Fitness Centre was advertised electronically on the municipal website and the Ontario Public Buyers website. Forty-one (41) firms downloaded or,picked up the specifications. 1.2 Subsequently, twelve (12) proposals were received and evaluated. Refer to Attachment #1 for the list of proponents who responded to the RFP. 2. ANALYSIS 2.1 Twelve submissions were received. All proposals met the bid submission requirements and were evaluated based on company background, references, pricing/cost, staff qualifications and experience, quality of submission, project deliverable and value added services. 2.2 The proposals were reviewed and ranked by staff members from Community Services and Corporate Services. The criteria was ranked accordingly on a scale from one (poor) to five (excellent)-consistent with the RFP guidelines. 2.3 Four bidders with the highest ranked written proposals, AECOM Canada Architects Ltd., Whitby; +VG Architects, Toronto; Barry*Bryan Associates (1991) Ltd, Whitby; and Teeple Architects/Nick Swerdfeger Architects, Toronto were short listed and made a presentation to the Evaluation Team on their understanding and approach to the project. The presentations were evaluated based on ability to communicate, overall impression of the presentation, attention to concerns/questions, their understanding of the requirements and identification of practical solutions. 2A The highest ranked consultant is the Barry*Bryan Associates (1991) Ltd, Whitby, Ontario. They have completed numerous several similar renovation projects and provided satisfactory work to the Municipality in the past. 2.5 Queries with respect to the department needs, specifications, etc, should be referred to the Director of Community Services, 3. FINANCIAL 3.1 The total cost of the services is $201,942.72 (net of H.S.T. Rebate) including disbursements. The total cost noted includes design, drawings, tender specifications, contract administration and disbursements. 3.2 The required funds are to be drawn from the Community Services' CFC Renovation Capital account#110-42-421-84203-7401 and are within the 2013 budget amount of $250,000.00 REPORT NO.: COD-015-13 PAGE 3 4. CONCURRENCE 4.1 This report has been reviewed by Joseph P. Caruana, Director of Community Services who concurs with the recommendations. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 That the highest ranked proponent, Barry*Bryan Associates (1991) Ltd, be recommended as the successful proponent for the provision of Architectural Services for the Renovation of Clarington Fitness Centre. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic,development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green-initiatives X investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Jerry Barber, Manager of Purchasing Services Attachments: Attachment #1: Bid Tabulation List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: NONE L�adt�g tape way Attachment 1 Municipality E ri BID TABULATION j RFP2013-4 Architectural Services Clarington Fitness Centre Renovation I BIDDEN Bid Amount (Net of HST Rebate) Barry*Bryan Associates (1991) Ltd $201,942.72 Whitby, ON AECOM Canada Architects Ltd, Whitby, ON $127,200.00 +VG Architects Toronto ON $209,422.08 Teeple Architects/Nick Swerdfeger Architects T $183,473.28 Toronto, ON IBI Group Architects Toronto, ON $314,438.40 'J.R. Freethy Architect $ 216,647.04 Bowmanville, ON Lennis Trotter Architect Oshawa, ON $167,904.00 Raw Design Toronto, ON $ 218,784.Q0 Salter Pilon Architecture Inc. Barrie, ON $277,041.60 Stile Architect Woodbridge, ON $99,561.98 Susan Friedrich Architect Inc. $293,068.80 Toronto, ON Thomas Brown Architects Inc. Toronto, ON $ 161,289.6 Attachment#2 to Addendum # 1 to Report COD-015-13 MEMOLeading the Way TO: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager FROM: Anne Greentree, Deputy Clerk DATE: May 8, 2013 RE: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP2013-4, ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES — CLARINGTON FITNESS CENTRE RENOVATION FILE NO: F18.GE , Please be advised that, at the May 6, 2013 General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting, the following Resolution #GPA-314-13 was passed: THAT Report COD-015-13 regarding the Request for Proposal RFP2013-4, Architectural Services — Clarington Fitness Centre Renovation be referred back to Staff for a report providing the evaluations, criteria and ranking for consideration ate May 27, 2013 General Purpose and Committee meeting. n/ A n e ree ree CAG/jeg C. J. Caruana, Director of Community Services i i I THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Attachment#3 to REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Addendum# 1 to Report ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES—CLARINGTON FITNESS CENTRE RENOVA)1UN-015-13 RFP2013-4 Page 24 of 32 SCHEDULE (D) EVALUATION CRITERIA Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of all information provided by the Proponent. Each proposal will be reviewed to determine if the proposal is responsive to the submission requirements outlined in the RFP. Failure to comply with these requirements may deem the proposal non-responsive. Selection of a proposal will be based on (but not solely limited to) the following criteria and any other relevant information provided by the Proponent at the time of submission as well as any additional information provided during subsequent meetings with the Proponent. In recognition of the importance of the procedure by which a Proponent may be selected, the following criterion outlines the primary considerations to be used in the evaluation and consequent awarding of this project (not in any order). The Municipality reserves the right to evaluate and rank each submission using criterion noted and actual scores will be confidential. All questions must be answered and details must be completed to enable your proposal to be analyzed. The criteria for analyzing the bids will be based on the quality of service performed in and experience with other accounts. The following criteria, outlines the broad specifications for the proposed contract. The proposal submissions contained in the submission will provide the necessary information required to evaluate the submissions. Those firms achieving an overall rating of seventy percent (70%) will be shortlisted. PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM The selection of the winning proposals will be based on a numerical scoring system. There are four (4) categories by which the proposals will be evaluated. The proposals will be assigned a score for each category as outlined in the table below. Each category will be weighted as shown to reflect the goals for this project. RATING DESCRIPTION 5 Excellent Exceeds the requirements of the criterion in superlative beneficial ways very desirable. 4 Very Good Exceeds the requirements of the criterion and provides added value beneficial to the Municipality's needs 3 Good Exceeds the requirements of the criterion but in a manner which is not particularly beneficial to the Municipality's needs. 2 Average Adequately meets most of the requirements of the criterion. May be lacking in some areas which are not critical. 1 Poor Addresses most, but not all, of the requirements of the criterion to the minimum acceptable level. Lacking in critical areas. 0 Unsatisfactory I Does not satisfy the requirements of the criterion in any manner. This evaluation table is provided to give the evaluation team a basis for scoring the proposals and interviews. Even though evaluations will be done by members who will grade them differently, the main focus for each person doing the rating is to be consistent in scoring all proposals. THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES—CLARINGTON FITNESS CENTRE RENOVATION RFP2013-4 Page 25 of 32 SCHEDULE (D) EVALUATION CRITERIA Company ^ y Evaluator LIM y '� `$ "" ,�,`'aiks �ral•�ng. .,'} s Ytf�IJt-'rte ' �. �� IJ E _ � dore,_ Sore PART A—PROPOSAL SUBMISSION' - 1. Previous Experience of Firm • Depth of experience(years in business) X4 20 • Proven experience and success in providing similar public building renovations • With designing aquatic facility renovation projects • Capability to provide additional resources if and when X5 25 required, 2. Team Experience • Qualified Staff with professional affiliation/ membership • Experience of key professional staff assigned to this X 3 15 project. • Effectiveness of consultant as team player on previous projects. • Compatibility with personnel on previous projects 3. Experience of Key Personnel on Team • This item is extremely important to aspects related to the smooth running of the project development X 6 • Focus on the experience of Key Personnel, such as 30 Project Manager and their related experience • Amount of time Project Manager/Senior Staff will devote to the project(percentage) • Principals of firms-accountability 5. Working Knowledge in Clarington and Durham Region X 4 20 • Having previous experience in dealing with the various regional/local authorities 6. Ability to Complete Project in Accordance with Schedule • Understanding of process X 5 25 • Will current workload affect time required for completion of our project 7, Completeness&Quality of Proposal • Organization and clarity • Completeness and content X 3 15 • Overall presentation • Conflicts identified 8. Approach to Methodology of Project Delivery • The proposed interest and approach of the firm to X 5 25 assemble this project. • How does the firm envision the project? SUBTOTAL 175 4. Pricing/Cost: • Commission structure as provided on proposal form X6 30 • Additional Service Fees SUBTOTAL A&B % 205 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES—CLARINGTON FITNESS CENTRE RENOVATION RFP2013-4 Page 26 of 32 SCHEDULE (D) EVALUATION CRITERIA A _ �� _,s i _, � '�� ,� � Rating�.�,`. ,I•,IQ ��A,ctual �, d ssible L PART C—REFERENCE INTERVIEWS 1. The Municipality of Clarington reserves the right to contact any or all of a Pass Fail Company's references. , OR r { ?'_ 1 1. Ability to Communicate • Clear,concise communication • Impression of proposal presentation • Compatibility with Municipal staff X 5 25 • Clear expression of proposed methodology and management approach • Consistency with written proposal 2. Attention to Concerns/Questions • Did the team members understand the questions/ concerns X4 20 • The ability of the team members to address questions and/or concerns 3. Overall Impression/Presentation • Were all questions clearly answered X 6 30 • Creativity in past experience/projects • Demonstrate a commitment to the project 4. Ability to Understand Problem and Identify Practical Solutions • Did the team members understand the requirements X4 20 • Did the team members demonstrate problem solving skills with respect to short and long term objectives and goals and timelines SUBTOTAL 95 TOTAL 300