The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutADMIN-34-95 DN:ADULT.REP THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REPORT Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File # _� <, 6__7 Date: Monday, December 4, 1995 Res. Report #: ADMIN .3a-95File #: By-law # Subject: PROPOSAL CALL FOR OLDER ADULT CENTRE 1 Recommendations: i It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report ADMIN 34-95 be received; 2. THAT the selection committee be authorized to negotiate an agreement with Vanstone Mill Inc. and to report back to Council. 1. BACKGROUND: 1.1 Council has earlier authorized the Chief Administrative Officer to proceed to discuss with various property owners as to their interests in building an Older Adult Centre for the Municipality. As a result, discussions were held with representatives of Vanstone Mills Inc., Windleigh Development Inc. and Jourdan (1100719 Ontario Limited). All three companies expressed an interest and all requested the opportunity to bid on the project. 1.2 As a result, a proposal call document was drawn up by staff and all three parties were invited to bid on the proposed Older Adult Centre, 2 1104 REPORT NO.: ADMIN 34-95 PAGE 2 1.3 The proposal call document is drawn up based on a "turn-key" project, ie. cash for key and describes the objectives and requirements of the Municipality for the Older Adult Centre. It provides the terms of reference under which the parties were to prepare their submissions. 2. THE SUBMISSIONS: 2.1 All three parties submitted proposals. Copies of the proposal call document and the three (3) submissions will be distributed to Members of Council under separate cover. 3. THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE: 3.1 The Chief Administrative Officer has struck an adhoc Committee to evaluate the proposals. Members of the committee are: Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Planning and Development, Director of Community Services, and Facility Manager. Representing the Older Adult Committee are Don Welsh and Annabel Sissons. 4. THE EVALUATION: 4.1 The Evaluation Committee first met to determine the evaluation criteria and to agree on a process that follows. 4.2 Eight criteria were considered pertinent and were ranked in the following order of importance: cost, location, access, expansion potential, parking, building design, site aesthetics and ownership. Numerical weighting factors were then assigned to each criteria. 4.3 Next, each committee member was asked to assess the three proposals based on the agreed to criteria and weights. The scores from each member were then added to determine the total scores for each of the three proposals presented as follows: 3 REPORT NO.: ADMIN 34-95 PAGE 3 OLDER ADULT CENTRE PROPOSAL EVALUATION COMPOSITE SCORES CRITERIA JOURDAN VANSTONE WINDLEIGH COST 176 200 56 LOCATION 168 119 133 PARKING 75 90 70 ACCESS 115 50 105 EXPANSION 75 115 85 BUILDING DESIGN 60 57 36 SITE AESTHETICS 14 46 30 LAND OWNERSHIP 8 24 22 TOTAL 691 701 53771 4.4 As part of the evaluation process, each party was given the opportunity to present their proposals to the Committee as well as to answer questions. 5. STAFF COMMENTS: 5.1 Unlike a tendering process where bidders were asked to bid on a specific project or product, and where the lowest bid price usually represents the most important and often the only criterion for selection, evaluation of submissions to the proposal call is somewhat different as other criteria are just as important as cost. This therefore necessitated the ranking and weighting of various criteria as described in Section 4. 5.2 In any event, the bid price (exclusive of G.S.T.) from the three (3) parties are as follows: Jourdan $1,300,000. Vanstone Mill $1,295,328. Windleigh Developments $1,729,080. 4 1106 REPORT NO.: ADMIN 34-95 PACE 4 5.3 As a result of the evaluation and the resultant point scores, the Committee unanimously recommend the Vanstone Mill proposal be given favourable consideration. 5.4 Prior to committing to the Vanstone Mill proposal, it is imperative that the Municipality can successfully negotiate an agreement with Vanstone Mill Inc.. Said agreement is necessary to address all details pertaining to the delivery of the project. 5.5 Upon reaching an agreement, staff will bring forth a report for Council's consideration and approval. 5.6 The Evaluation Committee is aware that Council has tabled Report CS-31-95 which deals with the renovation of the old Firehall/Court House building. We suggest that this report should remain tabled until such time an agreement is reached with Vanstone Mill Inc. and duly approved by Council. Respectfully submitted, W. H. Stockwell Chief Administrative Officer WHS*FW*jip November 29, 1995 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON X REPORT Meeting: COUNCIL File# �C Date: SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 Res. # Report#: CS-31-95 File#: By-Law# Subject: OLDER ADULT CENTRE/FORMER FIRE HALL RENOVATIONS Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended to Council the following: 1. THAT Report No. CS-31-95 be received; 2. THAT the revised project budget be established at $757,955.00; 3. THAT staff report back identifying a specific source for funding at such time when project tenders have been received; and 4. THAT the Clarington Older Adult Association be advised of Council's decision. 1.0 BACKGROUND: 1.1 On July 10, 1995 staff was informed by the project architect that the new elevator shaft could not be accommodated within the existing structure. The explanation given was the existing plumbing system and heating, ventilation and air conditioning duct work system for the second floor passes through the proposed elevator shaft. 1.2 The cost of modifying the existing duct work would exceed the cost allowed for this portion of the project therefore, the Architect recommended relocating the elevator shaft to the exterior of the building. 1.3 Staff was further advised that the increased cost of an exterior elevator shaft would be offset by the following: o Plumbing and mechanical savings; o Renovations to the second floor would be less extensive; o Modifications to the roof structure to provide elevators headroom clearance would be eliminated; and o Excavation cost would be reduced for an exterior shaft and pit. ../2 I PPE9®NECYCLE � / I� TH66E5i.f1EDWRECYCiID P/.�R ' REPORT CS-31-95 " 2 - SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 1.4 On August 3, 1995 staff was again contacted by the project architect and informed that an increase to the budget is required due to the following: o Need to move elevator shaft to the exterior; o Increases in the construction industry; and o Additional savings in the design could not be found. 2.0 COST ANALYSIS: 2.1 Since that time staff referred the project to an independent cost consultant to verify the estimated project costs and confirm the amount of additional funds required to complete the project. 2.2 Results of that undertaking have confirmed that the project will require a construction budget of$688,400.00 (estimated). 3.0 PROJECT BUDGET; 3.1 The original budget for this project was estimated at $350,000.00 which was the amount submitted when the Municipality made application for the Canada/Ontario Infrastructure program. 3.2 On April 3, 1995 Council approved an increase of$239,995.00 to establish the project budget at $589,995.00 as recommended by the project architect. 3.3 As a result, the current revised estimate for the project is as follows: Construction Costs (Including Contingency) $688,000.00 Preliminary Studies - Soils Investigation $ 1,500.00 - Legal Survey $ 1,225.00 - Hazardous Substance $ 1,330.00 Hydro $ 9,350.00 Architect/Engineering Fees $ 51,800.00 TOTAL 753,205.00 G.S.T. $ 4,564.00 GRAND TOTAL $757,769.00 CURRENT BUDGET $589,955.00 ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUIRED $167,814.00 3.4 Through discussions with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Treasurer, alternative sources of funding could be accessed for the additional funds to supplement this project. 3.5 Should Council approve the revised budget,staff will report back identifying a recommended source of financing at such time that a recommendation to award the tender is made. ../3 1109 REPORT CS-31-95 - 3 " SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, Jos P. Caruana, Director W. H. gt6ckwell, Co munity Services'Department Chief Administrative Officer JPC:sa I � Sol l g6k6 rnc,V,L�ar o �-1 ce X13 Lit { R40- �Wb G •e.rur-i C�cr��rS � c Con c v�c�-� -zC � ::;,� aob Doy" mk&k O m C 3-�j C� -tt(.e 4q5 -7 �P( inc� -Tb ou�,d l l b01 l �`4rutc,a 1 n C , Cl W064 awn �e� Toroh. (), . Ct ko -0�6