June 30, 1999

To:Works Committee

From:Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services

Subject:Engagement of Consultants to Undertake the

Water Supply Joint Optimization Study

Purpose:

To present the results of the request for proposals for the selection of consultants to carry out the Water Supply Joint Optimization Study, and to obtain approval to award the consulting assignment to Proctor & Redfern Limited.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

During the meeting of March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, City of Toronto Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of the Strategic Priorities and Planning Committee approving the 1999 - 2003 Capital Budget and Five-year Capital Program. This included funds for the engagement of consultants for the Water Supply Joint Optimization Study. These funds are available in the Water and Wastewater Services Division, Water Supply Account Number WS 363 Engineering Studies.

The total approved funds for this study is $513,000.00 net of Goods & Services Tax (GST) rebate. The total estimated cost of the study is $1,006,000.00 net of GST rebate, to be shared equally with York Region. Therefore, the net cost to Toronto is estimated at $503,000.00 which is within the approved amount.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the consulting assignment for the Water Supply Joint Optimization Study be awarded to the firm of Proctor & Redfern Ltd. at a cost not to exceed $955,000.00, including GST and a contingency allowance of $90,000.00, including GST to cover potential additional engineering work required if necessary and as authorized by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of July 29, 30, 31, 1998, City of Toronto Council approved Clause No. 1 of Report No. 7 of the Works and Utilities Committee authorizing execution of an agreement for supply of additional water to York Region. This agreement allows for an average day supply of 260 megalitres (ML) to York Region, a demand anticipated to occur in 2004. The Capital Works required to satisfy the additional supply of water are based on the 1995 Water Supply Joint Study. This study undertaken by Fenco MacLaren Inc. identified infrastructure to meet City of Toronto demand to the year 2011 while providing average day supply of 260 ML to York Region. This includes demand reductions of 13 percent within the City of Toronto due to water efficiency programs. The capital cost of the additional infrastructure to meet these demand conditions was estimated at $206 million. This cost is shared with York Region based on proportional use, in this case both shares being approximately $103 million.

The agreement also includes a clause wherein the parties agree to complete joint infrastructure studies in a timely fashion to confirm the need for construction of new capital works which consider expansion of the Toronto system to service the Toronto area and York Region. The cost of these studies are to be shared between the parties.

Growth within the City of Toronto continues, however, at a rate less than that anticipated in the 1995 Water Supply Joint Study (WSJS). There is also ongoing growth within York Region. As one option to meet growth demands, York Region is currently undertaking an Environmental Assessment for additional water supply from Lake Ontario via a Durham West route. However, the Region is eager to explore the viability and effectiveness of additional supply from Toronto. Considering the above changes from assumptions used in the 1995 WSJS, a new infrastructure study is required. Due to the long lead time for works of this nature, this study must be undertaken at this time.

The main objectives of the study include:

(a)a high level assessment of Greater Toronto Area wide services and identification of opportunities to meet growth and security needs;

(b)determination of projected water demands within City of Toronto for the year 2011 and 2031 and incorporating existing water demand projections for York Region to the same planning horizons;

(c)to identify and incorporate the effects of ongoing water efficiency programs in Toronto and York Region; and

(d)determination of optimal infrastructure required to meet the above demands including assessment of options for additional supply from Toronto.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The terms of reference to undertake this study were issued to consultants on May 17, 1999. The details of the selection process are outlined in Appendix 'A'. On June 14, 1999, the Works and Emergency Services Department received detailed proposals including separate sealed cost proposals from CH2M Gore & Storrie Limited, Proctor & Redfern Limited and the Greater Toronto Consulting Group.

All of the proposals were reviewed by a Consultant Selection Committee comprised of representatives from the City of Toronto and York Region, based on a predetermined selection process of evaluating the proposals against specified criteria. Following detailed review of the technical aspects of the submissions, all three firms qualified for further consideration and the price envelopes were opened.

Interviews were held with the three firms in order to clarify and finalize the specific scope of work required and the related costs involved. Further dialogue and communication took place after the interviews.

As indicated in Appendix "A" which details the consultant selection process, the Consultant Selection Committee concluded that the proposal submitted by Proctor & Redfern Ltd. was determined to have the "lowest cost/point" and best satisfied the overall project requirements at a reasonable cost.

Conclusions:

A thorough consultant selection procedure has been followed consistent with Corporate practices.

It is recommended that Proctor & Redfern Ltd. be awarded the assignment to undertake the Joint Optimization Study.

Contact Name:

Mr. H.A. Taniguchi, P. Eng.

Director, Water Supply

Phone: (416) 392-8220

Fax: (416) 392-3639

E-mail: htaniguchi@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

Michael A. Price, P.Eng., FICEBarry H. Gutteridge

General ManagerCommissioner

Water & Wastewater ServicesWorks & Emergency Services

LBL/rah

Attachment

APPENDIX 'A'

WATER SUPPLY JOINT OPTIMIZATION STUDY

Details of the Consultant Selection Process

(1)A two-stage process was undertaken whereby Expressions of Interest were requested first followed up by a Request for Proposals from the short-listed proponents.

(2)Sixteen firms with experience in similar work were chosen from a roster of qualified consultants and invited to submit Expressions of Interest. Nine firms declined to submit proposals. Of the remaining seven firms, four banded together to form a consortium in order to prepare responses such that four responses were submitted in total. The responses were evaluated according to a set of pre-established criteria by representatives from the Water and Wastewater Services and Technical Services Divisions of the Works and Emergency Services Department.

(3)Using a threshold level of 75 per cent of the maximum attainable score as a criterion, evaluation of the Expressions of Interest resulted in a short list of three consulting firms. Detailed written proposals, including separate sealed cost proposals, were requested and received from the three firms.

(4)A formal consultant selection committee was struck to evaluate the detailed proposals. As with the Expression of Interest, the committee was comprised of representatives from the Water and Wastewater Services and Technical Services Divisions of the Department and York Region.

(5)The technical submissions were reviewed first independently and then jointly by members of the Consultant Selection Committee, and were evaluated according to a set of pre-established criteria. Once again, a threshold level of 75 per cent of the maximum attainable score had been previously established as the criterion for the next step which was a review of the separately submitted sealed cost proposals.

(6)Accordingly, all three firms qualified for further consideration and the cost proposals were reviewed.

(7)The three firms were then interviewed in order to clarify and finalize the specific scope of work required and the related costs involved. Further dialogue and communication took place after the interviews and proponents were requested to provide written clarification to proposal items as required.

(8)On completion of all the above, the selection committee concluded that the Proctor & Redfern Ltd. submission had the "lowest cost/point" based on the costs in the fee proposal and the points awarded in the technical evaluation and was, therefore, ranked first.

(9)It was recommended that the Water Supply Joint Optimization Study be awarded to Proctor & Redfern Ltd.