HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-38-88 DN: 38-88 REPORT #3
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT File
Res. # e _10_�_ 98
By-Law #
MEETING: COUNCIL
DATE: Monday, February 8, 1988
REPORT #: PD-38-88 FILE #: PLN 3.0
SUBJECT: TOWN OF NEWCASTLE SECONDARY HAMLET PLANS
ORONO AND HAMPTON
FILE: PLN 3.0
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-35-88fibe received; and
2. THAT Staff be authorized to retain the services of Proctor and Redfern Ltd.
to prepare Hamlet Secondary Plans for the Hamlets of Hampton and Orono as per
the Town's Terms of Reference; and
3. THAT the necessary funds be drawn from the Department's Consulting Services
Reserve Account No. 2900-0023; and
4. THAT the three (3) other Consulting firms submitting quotes be thanked for
their interest in this project.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS:
At the Committee Meeting of February 1, 1988, the Committee had before it, Staff
Report PD-35-88 in respect of proposed Consulting Services for undertaking the
preparation of Hamlet Secondary Plans for Hampton and Orono. of the five (5)
companies invited, four (4) firms responded with quotations which ranged from
$37,000.00 to $43,000.00. Following preparation of the Staff Report, two (2) of
. . .2
REPORT 0O. ; PD-38-88 PAGE 2
_______________________________________________________________________________
the firms raised questions with respect to the Staff recommendation, suggesting
that elimination or adjustments to their submissions would be in order which
might affect the awarding of the two projects. This, in turn, lead to a
referral of the matter back to Staff for further review. Staff have completed
this review and would note the following.
Two of the submissions included additional work beyond the specific Terms of
Reference. In the case of one submission, this work was to be done on an "as
required" or "if needed" basis. Deletion of the item from the Coot Estimate,
does make the proposal more closely competitive with the submission previously
recommended for approval, but it was still slightly more expensive.
With respect to this additional work proposed, this included an iudeptb
analysis of the sodium problems with the Orono water supply wbiub' while of
relevance to the Hamlet Plan, is a matter still under review by Regional Staff.
In this case, we are confident that this would be addressed tbcuogb the
Dagiou"a review of any proposed Hamlet DIoo and should not require further
specific review. The other item involved the "possible" need for on-site soils
investigations and, in reviewing same, it was determined by Staff that this
would not be essential at this point in the study. If uncertainty exists with
respect to the soil conditions within a given area, such would be identified as
a possible development constraint requiring further investigation during the
.
development review process.
With respect to the other proposal, where it was suggested that adjustments
could be made, Staff have further reviewed the situation and note that the
mm 'uc difference is in the area of disbursements for reproduction costs related
to report preparation. Staff note that a portion of these onato could be
deducted from the total by reducing the number of reports to be prepared and,
in doing so, the total cost would be reduced below that of the submission
previously recommended by Staff. However, of greater oquoecu is the fact that
this firm's aobmiaoiuo did not follow the Terms of Reference relative to public
input and accordingly, it is difficult for Da to assess what impact that may
REPORT N0. : PD-38-88 PAGE 3
_______________________________________________________________________________
have on their cost estimate. In view of the procedure that
was followed and the fact that three (]) of the four (4) firms submitted their
estimates on the basis of the Terms of Reference, we believe that Proctor and
Redfern should be awarded the contract as being the lowest quote submitted in
n000cdauue with the Tacnm of Reference specified by Town Staff.
It is unfortunate that all the quotes did not follow the Terms of Reference
explicitly, however, at this point in time it is Staff's opinion that any
opportunity to adjust or revise quotes is inappropriate, would not be fair and
should not be entertained.
Respectful Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
r
___ � -----------------
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. Lawreu Kntaeff
Director of Planning Chief m istrative Officer
\ K
v
TTE* 'ip
*Attach.
February 3' 1988