Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process -
Request for Expressions of Interest
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends that:
(1)Council endorse provisions contained in the Integrated Solid Waste Resource
Management Process (formerly named the Solid Waste Management Marketplace
Engagement Process) Request for Expressions of Interest regarding the inclusion of:
(i)options for 5, 10, 15, and 20-year timeframes for provision of disposal capacity (or
an amount beyond five years which is not a multiple of 5);
(ii)the right of Toronto to engage in a subsequent tender for the haulage component
from our transfer stations by third party haulers in order to broaden the potential
marketplace response for the transport component;
(iii)the right of Toronto to maintain a role for its public sector employees in the
haulage component of the project, based on the existing levels of staff and equipment
involved in the haulage of waste from Toronto's transfer stations to the Keele Valley
Landfill Site;
(iv)a preferred customer clause to ensure that the disposal price(s) charged to Toronto
remain competitive over the contract timeframe; and
(v)disposal facilities that are certified to receive only solid waste from the Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional sectors in order to broaden the potential marketplace
response for the City's disposal needs;
and, subject to the approval of Recommendation No. (1), further recommends that:
(2)a Request for Expressions of Interest for "proven diversion", "disposal capacity"
and "new and emerging technologies", be issued on April 26, 1999, substantially in
accordance with the amended Request for Expressions of Interest attached to the report
dated April 9, 1999, at Appendix "D", subject to:
(i)including the following Mission Statement in the introduction section of the Request
for Expressions of Interest:
"The City of Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process be
designed to be flexible enough to incorporate new, environmentally sustainable
technologies that will move the City towards its ultimate goal of 'Zero Waste', that is, a
strategy based on maximizing diversion"; and
(ii)deleting that part of Section 6.1 pertaining to the "anti-lobbying" clause;
(3)the workplan for Proctor & Redfern Limited be amended to include the following
work tasks:
(i)development of a separate haul tender process to be incorporated into the
contracting out methodology and development of a protocol to utilize Toronto public
sector employees in the haulage component;
(ii)project management of the preferred customer clause in the Request for
Expressions of Interest and Request for Proposals;
(iii)project management related tasks regarding the inclusion of waste disposal sites
certified to accept only waste originating from the Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional sectors; and
(iv)the approved budget for Proctor & Redfern Limited be adjusted by the addition of
$95,395.85, inclusive of GST, to fund the additional workplan items listed in
Recommendation No. 3 (i), (ii), and (iii), with funds to be drawn from the contingency
allowance previously approved by Council on October 2, 1998; and
(4)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to prepare a
planning process regarding the establishment of a Request for Proposals for "proven
diversion" and "new and emerging technologies", which will be submitted for approval
and subsequent issuance following the reporting out of the results of the Request for
Expressions of Interest for "proven diversion", "disposal capacity", and "new and
emerging technologies."
The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested
the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report directly to Council
for its meeting scheduled to be held on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, on the following:
(i)increasing the minimum tonnage for the disposal capacity from 100,000 tonnes/year to
250,000 tonnes/year; and
(ii)a revised schedule which would bring forward the selection of applicants for
consideration by Council by the end of 1999.
The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from
the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek Council authority to issue the Solid Waste Management
Marketplace Engagement Process ("SWM-MEP") Request for Expressions of Interest, and to
seek Council's direction regarding several key policy matters that have arisen during the
course of the SWM-MEP consultation process. An associated authority is requested to adjust
our consultant's workplan and budget to carry out the associated work tasks.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
On October 2, 1998, City Council approved a project budget in the amount of $1,142,500.00,
for the SWM-MEP project, which entails a Request for Expressions of Interest and a Request
for Proposals for new disposal capacity and, at this time, a Request for Expressions of Interest
for diversion capacity and new and emerging technologies (Capital Account No. C-SW168,
Waste Management Planning). The budget for the project's consultant, Proctor & Redfern
Limited, was set at $722,500.00, including a contingency allowance of $200,000.00, including
GST, to fund additional work, if necessary. Through a motion adopted by Council on
November 25, 26, and 27, 1998, $82,500.00 was re-assigned from the contingency allowance
to Proctor & Redfern's main budget in order to enable them to modify the project's Request
for Expressions of Interest to include requests for diversion proposals and new and emerging
technology proposals.
Through this report we are seeking a similar re-assignment of funds from the consultant's
contingency allowance to their main budget, in the amount of $95,395.85, inclusive of GST.
Consequently, there are no new financial approvals associated with this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Council endorse provisions contained in the Solid Waste Management Marketplace
Engagement Process Request for Expressions of Interest regarding the inclusion of:
(i)options for 5, 10, 15, and 20-year timeframes for provision of disposal capacity (or an
amount beyond five years which is not a multiple of 5);
(ii)the right of Toronto to engage in a subsequent tender for the haulage component from
our transfer stations by third party haulers in order to broaden the potential marketplace
response for the transport component;
(iii)the right of Toronto to maintain a role for its public sector employees in the haulage
component of the project, based on the existing levels of staff and equipment involved in the
haulage of waste from Toronto's transfer stations to the Keele Valley Landfill Site;
(iv)a preferred customer clause to ensure that the disposal price(s) charged to Toronto
remain competitive over the contract timeframe; and
(v)disposal facilities that are certified to receive only solid waste from the Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional sectors in order to broaden the potential marketplace response
for the City's disposal needs.;
and, subject to the approval of Recommendation No. (1), it is further recommended that:
(2)the attached Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process Request for
Expressions of Interest be approved for issuance on April 26, 1999; and
(3)the workplan for Proctor & Redfern Limited be amended to include the following work
tasks:
(i)development of a separate haul tender process to be incorporated into the contracting out
methodology and development of a protocol to utilize Toronto public sector employees in the
haulage component;
(ii)project management of the preferred customer clause in the Request for Expressions of
Interest and Request for Proposals;
(iii)project management related tasks regarding the inclusion of waste disposal sites certified
to accept only waste originating from the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional sectors;
and
(iv)the approved budget for Proctor & Redfern Limited be adjusted by the addition of
$95,395.85, inclusive of GST, to fund the additional workplan items listed in
Recommendation No. 3 (i), (ii), and (iii), with funds to be drawn from the contingency
allowance previously approved by Council on October 2, 1998.
Council Reference/Background/History:
On October 2, 1998, City Council provided direction to the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services to:
"_ immediately proceed to engage the marketplace to secure solid waste management options
including waste diversion and disposal capacity to meet the City's long-term requirements
through a Request for Expressions of Interest and Request for Proposals process based on the
work undertaken in the planning process to date, but without proceeding to the submission of
an environmental assessment." (Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of The Works and Utilities
Committee.)
In addition, Council provided direction on a comprehensive range of policy and operational
matters, which are summarized below:
-the establishment of a 50 percent diversion rate by the year 2006 or sooner;
-inclusion of potential export to the United States;
-inclusion of Energy from Waste ("EFW") technology as a marketplace option;
-engagement of regional governments in the Greater Toronto Area as potential partners with
Toronto for future disposal capacity contracts;
-active consideration of potential partnership proposals with Toronto that may contain a
range of options including a transfer of ownership or leasing arrangements; and
-preparation of a planning process to engage the marketplace that includes public and
industry consultation and development of multi-faceted evaluation criteria.
For communication and planning purposes this new project has been named the Solid Waste
Management Marketplace Engagement Process ("SWM-MEP").
Council also adopted on October 2, 1998, recommendations contained in a report from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services (dated September 30, 1998) to retain
Proctor & Redfern Limited as the project consultant and to retain the legal firm of Tory Tory
DesLauriers & Binnington to provide external legal expertise. As the project consultant,
Proctor & Redfern's role is to assist staff in the proposal call process, including the
preparation and issuance of the Request for Expressions of Interest (the "REOI") and the
Request for Proposals (the "RFP"), analysis of responses, due diligence, and report
preparation.
Through this report we are seeking Council authority to issue the SWM-MEP REOI and
Council's direction regarding several key policy matters that have arisen during the course of
the SWM-MEP consultation process. Authority is also requested to adjust our consultant's
workplan and budget to carry out the associated work tasks.
Other related reports also listed on this agenda address:
-the SWM-MEP consultation program;
-a potential co-operative approach to solid waste management among Greater Toronto Area
regional jurisdictions; and
-the introduction of a prohibition against lobbying (an "anti-lobbying clause").
Discussion and Justification:
During the course of the SWM-MEP consultation process during the months of December
1998 through March 1999, several additional planning components were introduced by the
planning team. A summary of these additional items is listed below. A more comprehensive
review of these items, including stakeholder feedback is contained in a report also listed on
this agenda (please see "SWM-MEP - Results of Consultation Program").
Optional Timeframes for Disposal Capacity Proposals:
In order to attain a broad range of options arising from the engagement of the marketplace, we
have included in the REOI the ability for proponents to offer contracts of varying lengths.
Proponents can offer contracts for 5, 10, 15, or 20 years (or an amount beyond five years that
is not a multiple of 5). The resulting potential to contract with more than one proponent for
different contract timeframes may provide the City with flexibility as it proceeds to meet its
post-Keele Valley Landfill Site disposal needs. The flexibility that may result can also provide
opportunities to further advance diversion by directing waste at the end of a 5-year disposal
contract to a diversion facility(ies), such as a Materials Recovery Facility.
Right to Engage in a Tender for Haulage:
In order to receive competitive proposals on both the disposal and haulage components of a
disposal contract(s), we propose to issue a subsequent tender for the haulage component. The
haulage tender would be issued to third party haulers, in order to compare such haulage prices
with those proposed in the integrated proposal responses. The integrated proposal calls will
require pricing for a separate haulage component. We are also developing a role for City of
Toronto public sector employees in the haulage component of the project, based on existing
levels of staff and equipment involved in the haulage of waste from Toronto's transfer stations
to the Keele Valley Landfill Site.
Quantities and Contract Timeframes:
Linked to the haulage component of the project is a need for disposal proponents to identify at
the REOI stage not only their facility location, but also the quantities of waste they intend to
dispose of and the interest of proponents in the various contractual timeframes proposed by
Toronto.
Establishment of a Preferred Customer Clause:
Given the quantities of waste that Toronto may be contracting for, it is reasonable for the City
to expect pricing to remain competitive over the contract timeframe offered (i.e., up to 20
years). It is therefore proposed that the RFP will include a requirement that the price for
disposal in any contract be guaranteed to be that respondent's best price. If a lower price were
offered to another customer during the term of the contract, Toronto would be given a price
reduction to match the lower price. In this manner Toronto will have "preferred customer"
status.
Certain exceptions will be considered, for example, small quantities exceptions or wastes
under current agreements.
Contracting for IC&I Waste Only:
A number of potential marketplace respondents have disposal facilities that are certified to
only receive solid waste from the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional ("IC&I") sectors.
We have proposed that this component of the marketplace be invited to submit proposals to
dispose of the solid waste that the City receives from the IC&I sector at our transfer stations.
This approach would expand the potential marketplace response.
REOI:
Attached to this report as Appendix "A" is the REOI document. It is comprised of three main
components:
-preliminary tonnage base and ranges for the contracting-out options (e.g., Toronto alone
and Toronto with other GTA Regions);
-details of the information requirements, including: project and optional partnership offers
general description, site location, commercial details, and service delivery timeframes; and
-capability and financial mandatory (pass-fail) criteria that respondents must meet to be
qualified to pass to the RFP stage. The primary purpose of these criteria is to ensure that
respondents are suitable business partners in that they have the necessary experience, stability
and financial strength to meet the City's waste management needs.
As per Council's direction provided on October 2, 1998, the REOI seeks proposals in three
waste management categories:
-Proven Waste Diversion Capacity:
Proven waste diversion technologies are those with an ability to manage mixed waste or
mixed waste and source-separated waste, utilizing mechanical and/or biological processes.
-Proven Waste Disposal Capacity:
Proven waste disposal technologies must have an ability to manage mixed waste, utilizing
landfill and/or energy recovery processes.
-New, Emerging, Innovative, and Demonstration Technologies:
Technologies that have been proven at the pilot scale, but have not yet been applied for larger
waste volumes are referred to as new, emerging, innovative, and demonstration technologies.
Respondents to the REOI will not be able to submit any price information, including price
information as may relate to Toronto partnership offers. Respondents who qualify at the REOI
stage will be asked at the RFP stage to submit price information and information related to
evaluation criteria. At the REOI stage, proponents will submit two envelopes. The first
envelope will contain the information pertinent to the qualifications criteria. If a respondent
successfully qualifies, passes the second envelope containing the site location is then opened
and will subsequently be made public. If a respondent is not successful at the mandatory
qualifications criteria stage, then their second envelope will not be opened.
Conclusions:
We recommend that Council approve the attached REOI for diversion, new and emerging, and
disposal capacity. It is important for the City to proceed as the Keele Valley Landfill Site has a
projected closure date of 2002.
In conjunction with the approval of the REOI for public release on April 26, 1999, we are
seeking Council direction regarding:
-a request for expressions of interest for disposal capacity in 5, 10, 15, and 20-year
timeframes in order to broaden the potential marketplace response;
-the right to engage third parties subsequently in a separate tender call for haulage;
-the right to maintain a role for City of Toronto public sector employees in the haulage
component of the project;
-the inclusion of a preferred customer clause; and
-the inclusion of a request for disposal facilities that are certified to only receive solid waste
from the IC&I sector.
We are also recommending adjustments in our consultants approved workplan and budget, to
assist in the facilitation of the items listed above.
Contact Name:
Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S.
Manager, Strategic Planning
Solid Waste Management Services
Works and Emergency Services
Phone: (416) 392-9744; Fax: (416) 392-4745
E-mail: lawson_oates@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following report (April 9, 1999)
from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to respond to the requests for additional information by the
Works and Utilities Committee on March 24, 1999, regarding the March 15, 1999 report from
the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services titled "Solid Waste Management
Marketplace Engagement Process - Request for Expressions of Interest."
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no direct financial considerations arising from this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to prepare a planning
process regarding the establishment of a Request for Proposals for "proven diversion" and
"new and emerging technologies", which will be submitted for approval and subsequent
issuance following the reporting out of the results of the Request for Expressions of Interest
for "proven diversion", "disposal capacity", and "new and emerging technologies";
(2)the recommendations contained in the March 15, 1999 report from the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services regarding the issuance of the Request for Expressions of
Interest be adopted;
(3)the amended Request for Expressions of Interest document for "proven diversion",
"disposal capacity" and "new and emerging technologies", which is attached to this report at
Appendix "D", be adopted and approved for issuance on April 26, 1999; and
(4)the remaining balance of this report be adopted for information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
On March 24, 1999, the Works and Utilities Committee deferred consideration of a report
dated March 15, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, regarding
the issuance of a Request for Expressions of Interest for disposal and diversion capacity, until
a further meeting of the Committee, if possible to a special meeting of the Committee to be
convened at the call of the Chair prior to the next meeting of Council scheduled to be held on
April 13, 1999, to resolve outstanding issues. This decision was recorded as the first of seven
motions passed by the Committee in regards to the March 15, 1999 report from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.
Listed below are the additional six motions passed by the Committee and our responses.
Discussion and Justification:
Motion No. 2:
"The Works and Utilities Committee adopted the following recommendations and tabled such
recommendations until the report is again considered by the Committee:
(i)that all terminology be changed be adding the word "resource" after the words "solid
waste" wherever they appear in the City's waste resource management process; and further
that the title to be used to describe the entire process be: "Integrated Solid Waste Resource
Management Process."
Response:
We will add the word "resource" after the words "solid waste" in all subsequent project
documents and title the project "Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process". We
propose that the acronym "TIRM" be used as an abbreviation of the title, standing for Toronto
Integrated Resource Management.
Motion No. 2 (ii):
"that the overall objective of the process adopt the following mission statement:
"The City of Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process be designed to
be flexible enough to incorporate new, environmentally sustainable technologies that will
move the City towards its ultimate goal of 'Zero Waste', that is, a strategy based on
maximizing diversion." "
Response:
We will incorporate this mission statement in subsequent project documents and
communications.
Motion No. 2 (iii):
"that in order to enhance the potential for diversion from disposal, the maximum limits on the
size of proposals in the "proven diversion capacity" (currently limited to 250,000 tonnes/year)
and the "new and emerging technologies" (currently limited to 100,000 tonnes/year) be
increased; and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to
submit a further report with options for alternative limits or no limits, with the corresponding
wording for amendments which would give effect to these options."
Response:
We would like to clarify that the proposed limits on the size of diversion projects are for
individual projects, and are not necessarily the limit in the "proven diversion capacity"
category and "new and emerging technologies" category.
In response to the Committee's request, we have adjusted the Request for Expressions of
Interest "proven diversion" category to a maximum of 300,000 tonnes per annum. We believe
this will provide the diversion component of the marketplace with sufficient quantities to
achieve economies of scale, and set an appropriate maximum quantity level for successful
diversion technologies now in commercial operation. A successful respondent contracting for
the management of 300,000 tonnes per annum will therefore be managing one-third of our
residential solid waste resource currently being disposed.
In regards to the new and emerging technologies category, we recommend that a maximum
limit of 100,000 tonnes per annum be maintained, given that the technologies in this category
by definition have not yet achieved a commercial operating track record at this tonnage level.
Once a respondent has demonstrated a successful track record and is in a position to manage
greater quantities, additional tonnages can be diverted from disposal to the diversion category.
Motion No. 3:
"The Works and Utilities Committee requested that City Councillors attending the Federation
of Canadian Municipalities Annual Conference who are members of the Works and Utilities
Committee (and others if possible) report back to the Committee on their investigations of the
City of Halifax program which is achieving high levels of diversion through separate
collection of compostable waste resources; that City staff investigate this system with Halifax
staff and prepare a full report for special presentation to the Works and Utilities Committee
meeting on Wednesday, June 16, 1999, and that a team of appropriate Halifax officials
(including an elected official) be invited to participate, as guests of the City, at such meeting
to describe their experiences; and that funds for the delegation's expenses be provided from
the project budget."
Response:
We will submit a staff report and presentation regarding the City of Halifax's diversion
program to the June 16, 1999 meeting of Works and Utilities Committee. We will also assist
with the invitations to Halifax officials to attend the June 16, 1999 meeting to describe their
particular experience.
Motion No. 4:
"The Works and Utilities Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services to revise the Request for Proposals to ensure that there is an opportunity for the
private sector to provide the City with Expressions of Interest based on fluctuating tonnage or
number of years and openings at which point the City can reduce its minimum tonnage."
Response:
We have introduced a third response table in the REOI (Form 3.3), which is provided to invite
respondents to express interest in managing diminishing tonnages over time and other
innovative options they may wish to present. In the event that a contract of this nature was
awarded it would provide "openings" at which point the City could reduce its disposal
tonnages.
Motion No. 5:
"The Works and Utilities Committee requested that when this matter is again considered by
the Works and Utilities Committee, the process and the staff process that is involved be tabled
as part of these recommendations."
Response:
We have attached to this report the strategic project schedule approved by Council on October
2, 1998, and an account of the consultant selection process (please see attached Appendix "A"
(i)). The schedule identifies the key project decision points. A refined schedule has been
provided within the text of the REOI, which is attached to this report for approval. The refined
schedule has also been attached at Appendix "A" (ii) for reference purposes. The schedule has
been modified in large part due to Council's direction on October 2, 1998 to engage diversion
proposals from the marketplace in addition to disposal proposals. We have also attached at
Appendix "A" (ii) a list of the current project team members. This is subject to change as
additional or alternate staff are assigned to the project during the proposal evaluation stage.
In regards to process, the TIRM project is based on the Council direction of October 2, 1998.
At that time Council provided direction to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services to:
"¼ immediately proceed to engage the marketplace to secure solid waste management options
including waste diversion and disposal capacity to meet the City's long-term requirements
through a Request for Expressions of Interest and Request for Proposals based on the work
undertaken in the planning process to date, but without proceeding to the submission of an
environmental assessment." (Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of The Works and Utilities
Committee)
Accordingly, we have worked with Committee and Council and external stakeholders to
develop a planning process which is based on sound environmental assessment planning
principles and will accordingly result in an outcome that is objectively based on the
application of set evaluation criteria.
In addition, Council provided direction on a comprehensive range of policy and operational
matters, which is summarized below:
-the establishment of a 50 percent diversion rate by the year 2006 or sooner;
-inclusion of potential export to the United States;
-inclusion of Energy from Waste technology as a marketplace option;
-engagement of regional governments in the Greater Toronto Area as potential partners with
Toronto for future disposal capacity contracts;
-active consideration of potential partnership proposals with Toronto that may contain a
range of options including a transfer of ownership or leasing arrangements; and
-preparation of a planning process to engage the marketplace that includes public and
industry consultation and development of multi-faceted evaluation criteria.
Additional information concerning the development process for the REOI and RFP is
contained in the Stage One (Draft) Planning Document that was tabled with the Works and
Utilities Committee at its meeting of December 2, 1998, and the subsequent report on the
public consultation process from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, dated
March 15, 1999.
Motion No. 6:
"The Works and Utilities Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services to submit a report to the Committee on the following proposals and requests for
information including any recommendations which flow therefrom:
(a)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services develop an evaluation system
for the Request for Expressions of Interest to include a complete list of criteria and
recommended weighting of the criteria in the evaluation process be for approval by the Works
and Utilities Committee and City Council."
Response:
The REOI is the first step in the two-step marketplace engagement process, and is followed by
the Request for Proposals (the "RFP"). The REOI is designed to qualify respondents who are
then invited to respond to the RFP.
Accordingly, the REOI presents a number of commercial and financial pass-fail criteria, and
in the case of the disposal category, a requirement that the site or sites be identified at the
REOI phase. Respondents that do not meet the commercial and financial criteria are therefore
not put through the rigors of the RFP process unnecessarily.
The draft RFP evaluation criteria, has been in development since 1997 and has been the focus
of comprehensive stakeholder consultation. It was once again presented for stakeholder
review and comment through the consultation on the project's Stage One (Draft) Planning
Document, November23, 1998, which was tabled with the Works and Utilities Committee at
its meeting of December 2, 1998. (A copy is attached at Appendix "B" for reference purposes.
The evaluation criteria is comprised within three categories:
(i) macro-environmental impacts;
(ii) Ontario-based benefits; and
(iii) financial impacts.
The current weighting for these categories is 35, 30, and 35 percent, respectively. Following
identification of the qualified REOI respondents, we will be placing ads in newspapers that
are published in close proximity to the proposed disposal site. The ads will present an
opportunity for input by stakeholders near the sites, in addition to our Toronto-based
stakeholders, and other stakeholders who have requested to be on the project mailing list.
Following the receipt of input from the varied stakeholders, we will submit the RFP
evaluation criteria to the Works and Utilities Committee and Council for approval of issuance
of the RFP.
We are following this process to ensure an ability to modify the RFP evaluation criteria in the
event that one or more proposals come forward that present significant impacts that are not
currently reflected in the evaluation criteria, such as agricultural impact by an as yet
uncertified "green-field" site.
We are scheduled to bring forward a report on this matter to the September 1999 meeting of
the Works and Utilities Committee. At that time we will put forward recommendations for
ongoing public involvement in the natural and environmental components of the evaluation
process.
We are also recommending through this report that we initiate a process of developing
evaluation criteria for the "proven diversion" and "new and emerging technologies" at the RFP
stage through a multi-stakeholder public process. We are recommending that this be the
subject of a further report following the reporting out on the results of the REOI process.
Motion No. 6 (b):
"that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services include, in the evaluation process,
criteria which would address the following:
(i)local economic impacts and local economic development potentials;
(ii)greenhouse gas reduction potential and performance."
Response:
The current draft Disposal RFP evaluation criteria includes an "Ontario-based Benefits"
category. It requires the respondent to identify the Ontario-based job creation resulting from
the impact of a contract with Toronto, including the Greater Toronto Area based employment,
which is enhanced through a 1.5 weighting factor. In addition the respondent must identify the
Ontario-based purchase of goods and services resulting from the potential contract.
Within the "macro-environmental impact" evaluation criteria category, a respondent must
identify the greenhouse gas production potential and the reduction potential through gas
recovery and production of steam for heating and/or production of electricity, as part of the net
energy balance calculation.
Motion No. 6 (c):
"that staff draft Requests for Proposals in as broad terms as possible to permit flexibility,
innovation and creativity of responses;"
Response:
As noted in our response to Motion No. 4, listed above, we have introduced an additional
response form in the REOI (Form 3.3) to provide a direct ability for respondents to provide
responses with fluctuating tonnages to provide "openings" for reduction of tonnages. With the
introduction of this response form and the opportunity for respondents to respond to diversion,
disposal, or new and emerging technologies, we believe the marketplace has the opportunity
to respond with flexibility, innovation and creativity to meet the City's pressing disposal
needs and diversion policies.
We are not recommending that the REOI and RFP be designed to provide respondents with
the ability to submit proposals that contain inter-linked disposal and diversion components
through a combined RFP or concurrent RFP process for the following reasons:
- it would create a very complicated comparative evaluation process that would require
additional time and associated budget, and an end result that may be difficult to defend in the
event that one or more respondents turned to the courts for resolution;
- the solid waste management industry has firms that specialize in disposal and a growing
number of small and medium-sized companies that specialize in diversion. If the large
disposal oriented firms submit combined proposals, they will be seeking longer contract
timeframes, in order to recover additional capital investments, than they may have otherwise
offered;
- if one or more of these proposals was to be adopted it may result in a loss in control over
marketing of the recyclable material, compost and energy produced by diversion facilities and
may eliminate the opportunity to consider public sector ownership and operation of such
facilities;
- these proposals may also come at the expense of engaging small and medium-sized firms
that specialize in diversion and want to maintain their inherent corporate flexibility to respond
to changing market conditions; and
- channeling large volumes of solid waste to large firms may result in the "export" of
processing jobs out of Toronto that would otherwise have been located here.
The approach we are recommending is to proceed concurrently with the REOI for all three
categories: proven diversion; disposal; and new and emerging technologies. After the receipt
of the REOI responses we would proceed in the following fashion:
- proceed with the Disposal RFP to secure the necessary disposal capacity we require when
the Keele Valley Landfill Site closes, which is projected in 2002. The quantity of disposal
capacity we would contract for would be linked to Council's policy of 50 percent diversion.
However, we will proceed on the basis that the 50 percent diversion can be achieved in 2002
through a combination of marketplace proposals and the public sector, through the
establishment of mixed-waste recycling and organic processing facilities; *
- in order to ensure that sufficient disposal capacity is available, we will build sufficient
flexibility within our disposal contracts to meet any shortfalls in diversion, while also
ensuring flexibility through short-term disposal contracts and/or contracts which allow for
diminishing tonnages to move beyond 50 percent diversion, with the objective of an 80percent
diversion rate and ultimately "zero waste".
*Attached in Appendix "C" are a series of charts identifying: (1) the total tonnages of solid
waste resource managed by Toronto in 1998; (2) our current residential diversion rate; (3) the
target of 50 percent reduction; (4) the potential disposal scenario in 2002; and (5) charts
showing the progress from 25 percent to 80 percent reduction.
By maintaining a focused approach on diversion, as opposed to an inter-linked disposal and
diversion approach, we can achieve the following:
-provide direct opportunities for the diversion industry to submit proposals and expand their
market share;
-potentially create a mix of private and public sector diversion facilities;
-utilize public lands within the City of Toronto for diversion facilities (public and private
sector) to negate land purchase costs;
-create jobs in Toronto; and
-maintain corporate control of marketing and utilization of energy produced from diversion
technologies, such as anaerobic digestion of organics.
In addition, by focussing the attention of the disposal side of the solid waste management
industry on our disposal needs, we pool the waste disposal proposals in one category in order
to engage the marketplace in a manner that creates a competitive environment that offers clear
direction in order to receive detailed and comprehensive submissions. Respondents can
submit proposals in one or all three categories, but they will be evaluated separately.
Therefore, our recommended course of action is as follows:
-Works and Utilities Committee and Council approve the REOI for all three categories and
authorize its issuance;
-provide authority to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to proceed with
the development of an RFP for proven diversion and new and emerging technologies. The
details of this RFP would be reported out following the conclusion of the REOI process and
would include: a plan for public consultation on the design of the diversion RFP evaluation
criteria; and recommendations associated with the mix of private and public sector diversion
activities; and
-following receipt of the REOI, proceed to the RFP for disposal to meet the City's pressing
needs, followed by the issuance of an RFP for proven diversion and new and emerging
technologies.
Motion No. 6 (d):
"in order to obtain the best disposal prices possible for the City by committing sufficient
volumes, that the RFP process allow all respondents to make their longest term
commitments;"
Response:
The REOI is structured to provide respondents with the ability to provide up to 20 years of
disposal capacity. While a respondent could identify in their REOI response an even longer
period of time, we believe that a contract of this length represents the upper limit of contract
length in the current marketplace.
Motion No. 6 (e):
"that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report on the following:
(i)harmonizing and/or clarifying the definitions of "proven waste resource diversion",
"proven waste resource disposal" and "new, emerging and innovative technologies" as
proposed in the Mandatory Qualification Criteria for these categories;"
Response:
We have modified the definitions of "proven waste resource diversion", and "proven waste
resource disposal", so that they are harmonized. The definition of "new, emerging and
innovative technologies" does not carry the same definition due to the nature of this category.
The definitions cited above can be found in Tables C-1, C-2, and C-3 of Attachment C of the
REOI, which is attached as Appendix "D".
Motion No. 6 (e) (ii):
"the possibilities of "performance based criteria" rather than or in combination with
"prescriptive criteria" throughout this process;"
Response:
Performance based criteria is an inherent part of this process. It will be measured through the
macro-environmental and Ontario-based benefits component of the project to ensure
compliance with stated levels of environmental impact and employment creation.
As discussed in our response to Motion No. 6(c) listed above, we do not want to impose
performance criteria related to diversion on respondents submitting disposal capacity
proposals because of the drawbacks associated with this potential course of action. We
maintain that the City's diversion goals and objectives can be met by the component of the
marketplace specializing in diversion technologies in conjunction with public sector based
efforts including the introduction of new mixed waste material recovery facilities.
Motion 6 (e) (iii):
"provisions which could ensure that all greenhouse gas emission reductions, including
downstream reductions, would remain in the ownership of the City;"
Response:
The RFP will clearly state that greenhouse gas reduction credits as may be associated with
waste management proposals that will become the property of the City of Toronto. Thus the
City will accrue the financial benefits as may be established by future markets engaged in
trading emissions reductions.
Motion No. 7:
"The Works and Utilities Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services to submit a report to the Committee at the time of the Request for Proposals on the
possibilities for provision of flexibility in the City's collection strategies which would allow
optimization of diversion within proposals."
Response:
We are responding to this request for a report on flexible collection strategies at this time
because potential respondents need to be aware of the opportunity to propose diversion
technologies that are based on a source separated and collected solid waste resource stream.
An example is a household organics processing technology that relies on a source separated
organic feedstock from the curbside.
Accordingly, we have modified the REOI to invite respondents to submit proposals at the
REOI phase that are based on a dedicated source separated organic feedstock, in addition to
technologies that are designed to process both mixed waste and source separated organic
waste.
When we report out on the proposals received that require a dedicated source separated
feedstock, we will factor in the associated additional collection costs that we would
experience in providing the necessary dedicated feedstock, in order to conduct a balanced
comparative analysis with other diversion proposals based on a mixed waste feedstock.
Conclusions:
This report has been submitted in response to the requests for additional information by the
Works and Utilities Committee on March 24, 1999, regarding the March 15, 1999 report from
the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services titled "Solid Waste Management
Marketplace Engagement Process - Request for Expressions of Interest."
We have recommended, in response to the Committee's direction, that the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services be authorized to prepare a planning process regarding the
establishment of a Request for Proposals for "proven diversion" and "new and emerging
technologies", which would be submitted after the reporting out of the results of the REOI for
"proven diversion", "disposal capacity", and "new and emerging technologies".
We have also attached at Appendix "D" of this report, a modified REOI, which present
harmonization of the definitions for the "proven diversion" and "disposal capacity" categories.
We are recommending adoption of this modified REOI and its issuance on April 26, 1999,
following Council approval.
Contact Name:
Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S.
Manager, Strategic Planning
Solid Waste Management Services
Works and Emergency Services
Phone: (416) 392-9744; Fax: (416) 392-4745
E-mail: lawson-oates@toronto.ca
Appendix "A" (i)
Solid Waste Disposal RFP Process
Project Schedule (As Approved by Council on October 2, 1998)
Project Activities : 1998 |
Target Date for
Completion |
Potential Completion Date |
-
Council Approval to Proceed.
- Hire Planning and Legal
Consultants.
- Assemble Project Team.
|
October 1 and 2, 1998 |
No change.
[Completed] |
- Issue Draft Planning
Document for Review by
Stakeholders (industry, public,
government, GTA), including
criteria for REOI.
(REOI includes business
credentials, financing, type of
technology, site location, and
letters of compliance for
operating facilities).
- Initiate Writing of Request for
Expressions of Interest
("REOI")
- Prepare "Memorandum of
Understanding" for GTA
inter-regional planning and
decision-making.
- Assemble staff team to
consider partnering options
|
November 1, 1998
November 1998
November 1998
November 1998
|
No change.
[Completed] |
- Receive all Stakeholder
Feedback and Conduct
Analysis
- Prepare REOI
|
December 15, 1998
December 1998 |
December 1998/January 1999
[Completed] |
Project Activities : 1999 - 2000 |
Target Date for
Completion |
Potential Completion Date |
- Works and Utilities
Committee/Council approval
of REOI
|
January 1999 |
February 1999
[Now revised, see A (ii)] |
- Issue REOI
- Initiate Preparation of Request
for Proposals ("RFP")
|
February 1999 |
March 1999
[Revised - scheduled for April
26, 1999] |
- Receive REOI Submissions
- Begin Evaluations
- Initiate Due Diligence
|
March 1999 |
April 1999
[See revised schedule,
Appendix A (ii) |
- Conduct Stakeholder Review
of short-listed REOI's
- Review RFP Evaluation
Criteria Based on Input
|
May 1999 |
June 1999 |
- Report to Works and Utilities
Committee and Council on
results of REOI evaluation and
on RFP criteria and process.
- Issue RFP
|
July 1999 |
September 1999
- Additional time may be
needed for review of
partnership options.
|
- Receive RFP Responses
- Begin Evaluation
- Complete Due Diligence
|
November 1999 |
January 2000
- Additional time may be
required for review of
partnership options, and
additional time for due
diligence, depending on
number of options under
review.
|
- Report to Works and Utilities
Committee and Council with
recommendations for Award
of Contract(s)
- Initiate Final Contract(s)
Negotiations
|
March 2000
(Allows time for several
staff reports) |
June 2000 |
- Finalize Contract Negotiations
- Report to Works and Utilities
Committee and Council
- Execute Contract(s)
|
September 2000 |
February 2001 |
"Target Date for Completion" : Total of 24 months
"Potential Completion Date" : Total of 29 months
Appendix "A" (ii)
Refined Schedule, April 8, 1999
Evaluation Schedule
REOI and RFP for Diversion, Disposal, New and Emerging Technologies
The schedule for evaluation of the EOI's is as follows:
TIRM Stages 2 and 3 (REOI and RFP)
Works and Utilities Committee Meeting
Revised REOI Submitted for Approval |
April 12, 1999 |
Council Approves REOI |
April 13, 14, 15, 1999 |
REOI Issued |
April 26, 1999 |
EOI's Received |
May 31, 1999 |
* Presentations to Proposed Special Meeting of
Works and Utilities Committee by REOI
Respondents |
Early June, 1999 |
* Public Deputations |
June 16, 1999 Committee Meeting |
Project Team Reviews Responses |
June 1 to June 25, 1999 |
Staff Report on Qualified Respondents
* Public Deputations |
July 14, 1999 Committee Meeting |
Public Notification of Potential Disposal Sites |
Week of July 19, 1999 |
|
|
RFP for Disposal |
|
|
|
Consultation on Disposal RFP Criteria |
July 19 to August 27, 1999 |
* Public Deputations to Special Proposed Meeting
of Works and Utilities Committee |
Early September, 1999 |
Present RFP to Committee/Council
* Public Deputations |
September, 1999 Committee |
Council Approves Disposal RFP |
September, 1999 |
Issue Disposal RFP |
October 1, 1999 |
* Presentations to Proposed Special Meeting of
Works and Utilities Committee by RFP
Respondents |
Mid-November, 1999 |
Disposal Proposals Received |
December 15, 1999 |
Evaluation of Proposals |
December 15, 1999 to January 30, 2000 |
Staff report on Top-Qualified Respondents to
Committee/Council
* Public Deputations |
February, 2000 |
Council Approves Top Qualified Respondents |
February, 2000 |
|
Due Diligence & Contract Negotiations for Disposal |
|
Due Diligence & Contract Negotiations |
February to August, 2000 |
Staff Report to Committee and Council with
recommendations for Award of Contract(s) |
September, 2000 |
Preferred Contractor(s) Commissions Facilities |
2001 |
New Disposal Capacity available for January 1, 2002. |
|
|
RFP for Diversion and New and Emerging Technologies |
|
|
An RFP for proven diversion and new and emerging technologies will follow the RFP for
disposal in a sequential manner. The schedule for this RFP is provided below. |
REOI Issued |
April 26, 1999 |
REOI's Received |
May 31, 1999 |
Project Team Reviews responses and prepares staff
report |
June/August,1999 |
Staff Report on Scope and Schedule for RFP
* Public Deputations |
September, 1999 Committee Meeting |
Consultation with Stakeholders on RFP, Scope,
Methodology & Criteria |
October, 1999 |
Project Team Drafts RFP |
November, 1999 |
Staff Presents RFP Document, Including Evaluation
Methodology to Committee/Council
* Public Deputations |
December, 1999 Committee Meeting |
Council Approves RFP |
January, 2000 |
Issue RFP |
January 28, 2000 |
Proposals Received |
March 30, 2000 |
Evaluation of Proposals and Review of Existing
Diversion Program Strategy |
April 1, 2000 to June 1, 2000 |
* Presentations to Proposed Special Meeting of
Works and Utilities Committee by RFP
Respondents |
Mid-March, 2000 |
Staff Report on Top Qualified Respondents and
Diversion Program Strategy to Committee/Council
* Public Deputations |
June, 2000 |
Council Approves Top-Qualified Respondents |
June, 2000 |
|
|
Due Diligence and Contract Negotiations for Diversion and New and Emerging
Technologies |
Due Diligence and Contract Negotiations |
July, 2000 to December, 2000 |
Staff Report to Committee and Council
* Public Deputations |
January, 2001 |
Council Approves Award of Contracts |
February, 2001 |
|
|
Preferred Contractor(s)/Partner(s) and Potentially
City of Toronto Commissions Facilities |
2001 - 2005 |
City of Toronto's Best Efforts to Address 50%
Waste Diversion Target |
2006, or Sooner |
Details of the Consultant Selection Process
1. A consultant selection committee was struck including representatives from Solid Waste
Management and Technical Services Divisions.
2. A pre-notification to seven (7) qualified consulting firms was issued advising of the
restricted timeline for responses to the Terms of Reference that would be issued.
3. Six (6) firms advised of their interest in receiving Terms of Reference.
4. Detailed proposals, including separate sealed cost proposals, were requested and received
from two (2) of the firms.
5. Both technical submissions were reviewed first independently, then jointly by members
of the consultant selection committee and were evaluated according to a set of pre-established
criteria. Prior to undertaking the review a threshold level of 75 percent of the maximum
attainable score was established as the criteria for the next step, review of the separately
submitted sealed cost proposals.
6. Following detailed review of the technical submissions, both firms qualified for further
consideration of their cost proposals.
7. Following a review of the cost proposals, the two firms were interviewed in order to
clarify and finalize the specific scope of work required and the related cost factors for same.
8. On completion of all of the above, the selection committee concluded that the proposal
submitted by the consortium of Proctor & Redfern Ltd., Mac Viro Consultants Inc., and
LURA Group, best satisfied the overall project requirements, at the lowest evaluated cost, for
an appropriate level of effort to properly address the critical elements of the work.
9. The estimated fees for the work to be undertaken by the consortium led by Proctor &
Redfern Ltd., is $522,500.00 including GST, and disbursements. We recommend inclusion of
a contingency allowance of $200,000.00 including GST, for a total budget of $722,500.00
Approved by Council on October 2, 1998.
List of Project Team Members
Barry Gutteridge, Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services
Angelos Bacopoulos, P.Eng., General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services
Andrew Pollock, M.B.A., Director, Policy and Planning Division, Solid Waste Management
Richard Butts, Director, Transfer, Processing and Disposal Operations, Solid Waste
Management
Lawson Oates, M.E.S., Manager, Strategic Planning, Solid Waste Management
James Anderson, Director, Municipal Law, Legal Services
Robert Mansell, external legal counsel, Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington
Pat Scanga, P. Eng. Engineer, Technical Services, Environmental Planning & Support
Tracey Ehl Harrison, Public Consultation Coordinator, Technical Services, Public
Consultation/Community Outreach
Carmela Romano, Manager, Budget Services Division, Finance Department
Carmine Bruno, Senior Budget Analyst, Budget Services Division, Finance Department
Pat Barrett, Communications Coordinator, Support Services
Michael Pratt, Proctor & Redfern Limited
Erin Mahoney, Proctor & Redfern Limited
Dave Merriman, P. Eng., M.B.A, MacViro Consultants Inc.
Sally Leppard, President, LURA Group
Appendix "B"
Draft RFP Evaluation Criteria
TABLE 4
STAGE 3 RFP Comparative Evaluation Criteria (Waste Disposal Capacity) |
|
Criteria |
Measure |
Priority
(weighting factor
points out of a
total of 100
points) |
1.
1.1 |
Human Health and Safety,
Natural Environment
Macro-Environmental - Impacts
Substance emissions to air, land
and water associated with waste
disposal facility operations and
waste haul
|
Quantity of the following
pollutants released to the
environment, expressed as the
quantity of substance emitted per
tonne of waste managed
(transported and disposed):
-
greenhouse gases (e.g., CO²,
CH4, N²O expressed as global
warming potential Co²
equivalents) (climate change)
- acid gases (e.g., NOx, SOx
and HCI) (acid precipitation)
- smog precursors (e.g., NOx,
PM10 and VOCs) (smog
formation)
- heavy metals (e.g., Pb. Cd, and
Hg) and trace organics
(dioxins, vinyl chloride,
PAH's) (health risk)
- Chlorides (C1) (water quality
change)
(Each of the above 5 pollutant
categories will be assumed to
have equal importance). |
35
25 |
1.2 |
Traffic safety associated with
waste haul |
Traffic safety exposure factors for
road and rail, incorporating
school bus routes, major at-grade
crossings, special intersections,
etc. (derived from MTO level of
service ratings (highway) and
National Transportation Safety
Board (rail) data) |
5 |
1.3 |
Energy resources management |
Net energy resource consumption
/ production in terms of heat
energy per tonne of waste
managed:
- type and quantity of fuel
consumption re waste haul
- energy balance of waste
disposal facilities' operations
(i.e, energy consumed plus
energy generated in the case of
EFW or landfill gas energy
recovery)
|
5 |
2
2.1
2.2 |
Social
Ontario direct jobs and indirect
jobs (from investment in Ontario
services and equipment directly a
result of waste management)
(2.1 includes direct and indirect
jobs that are a result of the
multiplier effect of waste
management on the economy).
Value of the jobs and investment
located in Ontario |
Net number of jobs per tonne
Net present value $/tonne of
wages and investment |
30
15
15 |
3.
3.1 |
Economic
System Costs:
Disposal cost (i.e., tipping fee)
and waste haul charges and all
internal costs that may be
associated with the proposal,
such as any modifications which
Toronto would have to make to
its transfer stations. |
Net present value $/tonne
- Tipping fee, only
- Waste haul, only
- Tipping fee and waste haul
|
35
35 |
4 |
Other
Criteria addressing specific
potential environmental effects
(in addition to criteria cited
above) associated with the waste
disposal bids as may be identified
during the Criteria
Review/Refinement Task
following Stage 1 REOI. |
To be determined |
To be determined |
,Appendix "C"
Solid Waste Resource Tonnage Charts
Appendix "D"
Modified REOI
CITY OF TORONTO
INTEGRATED SOLID
WASTE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT PROCESS
________________________________________
Stage Two
Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI)
________________________________________
_______________________________________
April 9, 1999
_______________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 THE SCOPE OF THE UNDERTAKING
2.1Overview of TIRM
2.2Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Shared Solution Potential
2.3Description of Response Categories
2.3.1Category 1 - Proven Waste Diversion Capacity
2.3.2Category 2 - Proven Waste Disposal Capacity
2.3.3Category 3 - New, Emerging and Innovative Technologies
2.4Waste Transport
2.5Schedule/Duration of Contract
2.6Public/Private Partnership Potential
2.7Preferred Customer Status
3.0 SOLID WASTE RESOURCES REQUIRING MANAGEMENT
3.1Background
3.2Quantities Requiring Disposal
3.3Other Wastes
3.4Contracting for IC&I Waste Separately from Residential Waste
3.5Waste Composition
3.6Request for Information Regarding Quantity Requirements and Contract Terms
4.0EOI RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
4.1Identification of Response Category
4.2Overview of Two-Envelope System, Applicable to Category 2 Responses
4.3Contents and Format of Envelope One
4.3.1REOI Mandatory Criteria
4.3.2General Description of Proposed Approach
4.3.3Description of Experience and Capabilities
4.3.4Format of Envelope One Submission
4.4Contents and Format of Envelope Two
4.4.1Forms 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3
4.4.2Proposed Project Specifics
4.4.3General Description of Participation Offers
4.4.4Format of Envelope Two Submission
4.5No Price Information to be Submitted in EOI
5.0 EVALUATION OF EOI RESPONSES
5.1Consideration of Envelope One
5.2Consideration of Envelope Two for Qualified Respondents
5.3Evaluation Schedule
6.0 REOI RULES AND PROCEDURES
6.1Authorized Contact Person (ACP)
6.2Communications
6.3Acquisition of REOI
6.4Briefing Session
6.5EOI Submission Location and Deadline
6.6Marking of EOI Submission
6.7Declarations
6.7.1Letter of Transmittal
6.7.2Joint Ventures and Consortium
6.7.3Notarized Certificate of Incorporation
6.7.4Evidence of Insurability
6.8Withdrawal or Qualification of EOI
6.9Omissions, Discrepancies and Interpretations
6.10Deficiencies in Proposals
6.11Treatment of Confidential Information
6.12Disclaimers
6.13Return of "Envelope Two" to Respondents Not Qualifying
6.14Security Deposits
7.0NEXT STEPS PERTAINING TO CATEGORY 2 - PROVEN WASTE
DISPOSAL
7.1Public Notification - Qualifying Respondents
7.2Stage Three - Request for Proposal (RFP)
7.2.1Status of RFP Evaluation Criteria
7.3Stage Four - Due Diligence and Contract Negotiations
7.4Future Directions
ATTACHMENT A: DECLARATION OF EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
FORM A-1: DECLARATION OF EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
ATTACHMENT B: EXPRESSION OF INTEREST CONTENT REQUIREMENTS
ATTACHMENT B-1: CONTENTS FOR EOI ENVELOPE ONE SUBMISSIONS
PART A:DECLARATION FORMS AND LETTERS
PART B: INFORMATION ADDRESSING REOI MANDATORY CRITERIA (as outlined in
Attachment C)
PART C: GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED APPROACH
PART D: EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITIES
ATTACHMENT B-2: CONTENTS FOR EOI ENVELOPE TWO SUBMISSIONS
PART E: PROPOSED PROJECT SPECIFICS
PART F: PARTNERSHIP OFFERS
ATTACHMENT C: REOI MANDATORY CRITERIA
TABLE C-1: PROVEN WASTE DIVERSION
TABLE C-2: PROVEN WASTE DISPOSAL
TABLE C-3: NEW, EMERGING AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Toronto intends to define and implement a system of waste management services
and facilities to address the City's long term needs.
The City is engaging the marketplace to identify these services and facilities. They include:
proven diversion capacity (recycling and composting), proven waste disposal capacity (landfill
and energy from waste) and new, emerging and innovative technologies. The City intends to
assess and choose among proposals under these three categories of services and facilities. To
guide this process, the City has developed a four-stage Integrated Solid Waste Resource
Management Process (abbreviated as "TIRM" - Toronto Integrated Resource Management).
The four stages are described as follows:
- Stage One-Preparation of Planning Document
- Stage Two-Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI), pertaining to each of the
categories: diversion, disposal and new, emerging and innovative technologies
- Stage Three-Request for Proposals (RFP), as may be issued pertaining to one of more
of the categories
- Stage Four-Due Diligence Reviews and Contract Negotiations, pertaining to top
qualified proposals
The City intends to consult with stakeholders throughout all four stages of the TIRM process.
Stage One has been completed and is documented in the following reports:
STAGE ONE (DRAFT) Planning Document, A Framework for Engaging
the Marketplace to Secure Solid Waste Management Options Including Waste
Diversion and Disposal Capacity, November 23, 1998.
Stage One Planning - Reports on Stakeholder Consultation, November 23,
1998 to March 5, 1999.
This request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) document represents the initiation of Stage
Two.
Toronto defines the marketplace to be private and public (e.g. municipalities) corporations,
located in Canada and the United States, with an interest in providing waste management
services to Toronto, either on their own or in a partnership with the City.
The purpose of the REOI is to determine the marketplace Respondents' basic technical and
commercial abilities to serve Toronto's long-term waste management needs. Those who are
determined capable will constitute a short list of qualified Respondents for consideration by
the City at future stages of the TIRM process. Accordingly, this REOI document provides the
following information:
- A broad overview of the scope of services that will be required under the contract(s).
(Section 2.0)
- A description of the quantities of waste that will require management under the contract(s).
(Section 3.0)
- A description of the approach to providing a response and the information to be provided
in responses. (Section 4.0)
- The methodology to be applied in evaluating responses and the manner by which a short
list will be identified . (Section 5.0)
- Specific rules and procedures that must be followed in preparing and submitting a
response. (Section 6.0)
- An overview of the next steps in the TIRM process once a short list is identified.
Following Toronto's evaluation of the responses to the REOI, qualified Respondents will be
notified in writing. Responses to the REOI, including interest expressed regarding options for
tonnage and terms (time) of contract, will be considered in any recommendations made to
Council. Decisions regarding options for tonnage and contract timeframes to be included in
any RFP will be made by Council in its sole discretion.
Toronto reserves the right to change the scope or conditions of TIRM process or to
discontinue this REOI process or any related RFP at any time. The Request for Proposals
alone, not this REOI, shall govern the terms, conditions and scope of the work to be proposed.
Specific reservations of Toronto's right not to contract for any portion of services detailed
elsewhere in this EOI do not limit this general discretion.
Notice of this REOI document is being made by way of advertisements in trade journals and
national newspapers. An official copy of the REOI must be obtained from the City of Toronto
in order to submit an Expression of Interest (EOI).
An official copy of the REOI document must be acquired by written request, as per Section
6.3.
2.0 THE SCOPE OF THE UNDERSTANDING
2.1 Overview of TIRM
Toronto Council decide, in October 1998, to implement a streamlined process to identify new
waste management capacity, following sound environmental planning principals. The new
process is known as the City of Toronto Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management
Process (Toronto Integrated Resource Management Process "TIRM").
The purpose of the TIRM process is to identify and, where appropriate, implement the means
by which Toronto Council's policies and directions on waste management will be achieved.
The program addresses the City's waste management needs in the context of three categories:
waste diversion, waste disposal; and new, emerging and innovative waste management
technologies. The process will identify waste diversion technologies and practices that can
assist the City in achieving the target of 50% diversion by 2006 (or earlier). The program will
address the need to have appropriate disposal capacity in place by the estimated time of the
Keele Valley Landfill Site's closure in late 2002. It is intended that Toronto's's waste disposal
capacity solution will not compete with, or be a disincentive to, Toronto's waste diversion
activities.
2.2 Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Shared Solution Potential
To manage waste more effectively, Toronto has adopted the policy of continuing to co-operate
with the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Regions of Durham, York, Peel and Halton, with the
objective of defining potential GTA partnerships to secure long term solid waste management
capacity.
The City of Toronto currently manages, through diversion and disposal, approximately two
million tonnes per year of municipal waste. For purposes of this REOI municipal waste is
residential waste and solid, non-hazardous industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I)
waste. Municipal waste from York Region (currently 174,000 tonnes/year) and Durham
Region (currently 125,000 tonnes/year) are currently disposed of at the Keele Valley Landfill
and are included in the above total. Toronto has agreed to provide York Region's waste
disposal capacity to the year 2004 or the closure date of the Keele Valley Landfill (whichever
is later). The majority of the Region of Durham's municipal waste is disposed of at Keele
Valley Landfill under a five year fee arrangement entered into between the former
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the Region. This arrangement expires in 2001, but
Toronto and the Region may renew it.
Peel Region and Halton Region do not utilize any elements of Toronto's waste management
system. However, the Regions are participating in discussions with the objective of remaining
abreast of developments and opportunities for co-operation. Peel Region has identified a need
for new long term waste disposal capacity commencing with the closure of the Britannia Road
Landfill in approximately 2005. The Region of Halton has determined that it has no interest in
potentially partnering with Toronto in regard to waste disposal, but is interested in potential
partnerships pertaining to waste diversion capacity, as might be initially identified via the
TIRM process REOI stage.
A Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") for collaboration on waste diversion and
disposal has been conditionally approved by the Regions of Durham, York and Peel. As
opportunities are presented through the forum of the TIRM process, the GTA Regions will
consider these opportunities within the context of their long term waste management planning
and implementation processes and will subsequently determine their commitment, including
level of participation, in any GTA approaches to sharing waste management solutions.
Respondents should be aware that pursuant to the MOU there will be consultation with
Regional Municipalities for their input prior to any major decisions advancing the process.
Documents or information received during the evaluation process or in any negotiations may
be shared with Regional staff subject to conditions requiring appropriate confidentiality by
Regional staff and councillors.
2.3 Description of Response Categories
Respondents have the opportunity of expressing their interest in any or all of the three
different waste management categories as described hereafter. A complete, separate
submission must be provided for each response category, and must clearly identify which
category it responds to. Facilities with integrated diversion and disposal technologies must be
submitted as separate diversion and disposal proposals; it is the intent that such proposals will
be evaluated separately.
2.3.1 Category 1 - Proven Waste Diversion Capacity
Proven waste diversion technologies are those with an ability to handle mixed waste or mixed
waste plus source separated waste, utilizing a combination of manual, mechanical and/or
biological processes. The products from waste diversion technology proposals must
demonstrably be capable of being commercially marketed for clearly established beneficial
purposes.
2.3.2 Category 2 - Proven Waste Disposal Capacity
Proven waste disposal technologies must have an ability to manage mixed waste, utilizing
landfill and/or energy recovery processes. Residuals from waste disposal (e.g. EFW ash)
technologies must be less than 20% of the input waste volume. Respondents are fully
responsible for the management of any residuals and this must be accounted for in their
submissions.
2.3.3 Category 3 - New, Emerging and Innovative Technologies
Technologies that have been proven at the pilot scale but have not yet been applied to larger
waste volumes are considered to be new, emerging and innovative technologies. These
technologies generally are technologies or applications with:
- unproven large scale performance,
- no demonstration of long term performance, or
- proposals for unconventional or unproven situations
2.4 Waste Transport
With respect to Category 2 above, Toronto wishes to realize best value from the structure of
the overall waste disposal systems it selects. For the purposes of this section, a "combined
transport and disposal system" is defined to be the acceptance and transport of waste, FOB
Toronto's transfer stations, and potentially GTA Regions' transfer stations, to waste disposal
facilities and the subsequent disposal of that waste. Toronto is seeking Expressions of Interest
for the provision of a combined transport and disposal system, subject to the considerations
which follow.
In order to achieve best pricing for the combined transport and disposal systems Toronto
evaluates, the City intends to issue an RFP for the provision of a combined transport and
disposal system, and subsequently a tender for transport service only. The transport only
tender will be issued to third party haulers, in order to allow Toronto to compare such haulage
prices with the prices of the transport component contained within the combined transport and
disposal system proposals. Respondents to the combined transport and disposal system RFP
will be required to provide a price for the combined service and a separate price for disposal
service only. Toronto will reserve the right to accept either price of a Respondent and to
contract with a third party for transport service to a Respondent's disposal facility.
The information on disposal facilities' locations, tonnage and contract timeframes as provided
in Respondents' response to the RFP, will be the basis for third party haulers responding to a
transport service only tender. A two envelope system will be employed to ensure that price
information from proposals for combined service is only known at the time price information
for the transport only proposals is considered.
Toronto fulfills approximately 30% of its current overall waste transport needs with the use of
City of Toronto employees and equipment. The City does not wish to lose this direct
employment and service provision capability. Therefore, Toronto will reserve the right to not
contract for a portion of any proposed waste transport service, it being the intent that, at
Toronto's sole discretion, delivery of this portion of service will be by City of Toronto
equipment and employees. The portion will be approximately equal to the existing levels of
City staff and equipment as are currently employed. In addition to responding accordingly,
Respondents may propose alternative means whereby Toronto's objectives could be met. It is
noted that this option is only applicable in the case of truck transportation. Toronto does not
have labour and equipment resources pertaining to rail transportation.
Respondents pertaining to Categories 1 and 3 are not required to address waste transport in
their EOIs. Following the review of the responses made pertaining to these categories, the City
will determine how the matter of waste transport to diversion and new, innovative and
emerging technology facilities will be addressed. For example, if the City decides to issue an
RFP for waste diversion capacity and new and emerging technologies, proposals for waste
transport service may be requested in a corresponding timeframe, similar to the approach
being taken for Category 2 - Waste Disposal Capacity.
2.5 Schedule/Duration of Contract
The contractual planning period is 2002 through 2021. Following the evaluation of the results
of this REOI, Council will determine whether contracts will be short or long term or a mix of
both for waste management practices and facilities.
The matter of contract timeframes with specific respect to Category 2 - Waste Disposal is
discussed in conjunction with waste quantities, in detail in Section 3.5 of this document.
2.6 Public/Private Partnership Potential
Toronto Council has determined that a marketplace approach (which may ultimately include
public-private and/or public-public "partnerships") is the preferred approach to obtaining long
term waste management capacity. As a starting point, Respondents will be invited to provide
Expressions of Interest in which there is no element of a partnership with the City of Toronto.
By requiring that all responses start as stand alone options, opportunities where Toronto could
participate can be identified without prejudice and subsequently, the benefits to be derived
from such participation can be better understood.
Toronto could participate within the concept of contracting out for waste management service
in a number of roles including, but not limited to:
- financing waste management facilities;
- the design, construction and/or operation of waste management facilities; and/or
- special purpose roles (i.e., provision of land, purchase of recovered materials and/or
energy).
Toronto's vision for its participation is as follows:
It is anticipated that there would be an allocation of responsibilities within any proposal to the
participant with the best ability to assume the allocated role and manage any associated risk.
This would ultimately result in the best service being offered over the long term to the
taxpayer. Within the bounds of any proposal, consideration shall also be given to the
allocation of returns (profits) from the operation. The return on investment to the participating
parties shall be directly related to the degree of participation and risk assumed by each.
The following factors will be considered in evaluating Toronto partnership offers:
- cost to Toronto taxpayers;
- jobs in the Toronto/GTA/Ontario economy;
- the level of service provided;
- assurance of access of long term waste management capacity;
- securing greater control over the environmental performance of waste transportation and
processing/disposal practices with the objective of minimizing long term potential
liabilities; and
- risk of financial or environmental liability.
2.7 Preferred Customer Status
Given the quantities of waste for which Toronto may be contracting, it is reasonable for the
City to expect pricing to remain competitive over the contract term offered (i.e., up to 20
years). It is therefore proposed that the TIRM Stage 3 RFP for waste disposal will include a
requirement that the price for disposal in any contract be guaranteed to be that Respondent's
best price. If a lower price were offered to another customer, during the term of the contract
with Toronto, Toronto would be given a price reduction to match the lower price. In this
manner, Toronto will have "preferred customer" status.
Exceptions to the application of the preferred customer requirement, that Toronto is prepared
to consider, could include the following:
- Contracts in existence at the time of the RFP call;
- Wastes generated from municipalities under existing service area agreements with host
communities; and
- Small quantities exceptions.
Other exclusionary circumstances may be proposed by Respondents. These will be considered
by Toronto provided the goal of long term price competitiveness is not materially effected.
In addition to providing preferred customer pricing, Respondents to the RFP may propose, as
an option, alternative means by which Toronto would benefit from the circumstance of the
size of Toronto's contract effectively underpinning the long term business viability of a waste
management facility. For example, Respondents might, as an option, offer to share with
Toronto the tipping fee revenues derived from contracts entered into during the term of the
Toronto contract.
Notwithstanding the opportunity available to propose exceptions or options, Respondents are
advised that Toronto reserves the right to require preferred customer pricing in any contract
awarded.
3.0 SOLID WASTE RESOURCES REQUIRING MANAGEMENT
3.1 Background
Toronto, through its engagement of the marketplace, wishes to obtain value for its taxpayers.
To achieve this goal, Toronto's REOI is formulated in a manner that allows both potential
private and public sector marketplace participants to express their interest in presenting cost
effective approaches for consideration by the City's elected officials.
In response to consultations conducted with stakeholders prior to the issuance of the REOI,
service providers are requested to express their interest in managing a range of tonnages over
various timeframes. Information provided will be considered by Toronto in structuring the
Request for Proposals.
Information submitted on this issue will not be used in the qualification of Respondents to be
invited to submit proposals in Stage Three. All Expressions of Interest will be evaluated in the
manner detailed in Chapter 5.0 "Evaluation of EOI Responses". Toronto is under obligation to
incorporate in the RFP any of the information received in responses on any issues including
quantities, contract timeframes, or approaches for requesting price information from
Respondents.
3.2 Quantities Requiring Disposal
There is uncertainty in the quantity of waste requiring management over the longer term due
to:
i) the nature of future waste diversion programs and future, new emerging technologies;
ii)the quantity of IC&I waste which will be delivered to the City for disposal;
iii)the participation of the other Regions within the Greater Toronto Area;
iv)the impact of population and economic growth on waste generation and "at-source"
waste reduction activities; and
v)daily and weekly fluctuations in waste arriving at Toronto's (and potential GTA
Regional partners') transfer stations.
In 1998 Toronto managed, in total, 2,122,000 tonnes of solid waste resource. Of this amount
246,000 tonnes of residential solid waste resource was diverted through recycling and
composting. The balance, 1,876,000 tonnes, was landfilled. The sources are as follows:
Residential1,004,000
Agencies, Boards,
Commissions and Departments202,000
Industrial, Commercial
and Institutional616,000
York Region174,000
Durham Region 126,000
Total2,122,000
Toronto has adopted a target of diverting from disposal (landfill and/or energy from waste),
50% of the waste generated within the City by 2006. The other GTA Regions have also
identified diversion targets in this range. Beyond 2006 and by 2021, diversion rates of
between 60% and 80% are being contemplated. Although the 50% diversion target has been
adopted, this does not imply that the City or GTA Regions are willing to enter into a long term
contract, or contracts, that commits the balance of their waste streams to disposal, thus
effectively capping future diversion at the 50% rate. However, if higher waste diversion rates
(i.e., 60% to 80%) prove to be significantly more costly than disposal, budgetary constraints
may mean that the City and/or Regions limit their diversion practices to closer to 50%.
Toronto has negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding with other Regions within the GTA
regarding their participation in the TIRM project. The impact of the other GTA Regional
municipalities participating in this proposal is that there would be more waste available than
under a Toronto only scenario. Because of the changing patterns of waste generation and
relative levels of success of the diversion programs, it is anticipated that Respondents will be
required to incorporate a significant degree of flexibility with respect to the quantity of waste
that will be available for disposal into their proposals.
The estimated quantities of waste requiring disposal are represented in Figures 3.1. The areas
shown as "Toronto" (white) and "GTA Regions" (light grey) represent the upper limit of the
amount of waste that Toronto and its potential GTA partners may be prepared to guarantee to
contractors, assuming 60% to 80% diversion rates are achieved by 2021.
Figure 3.1
Toronto and the Regions are continuing with planning processes aimed at defining, as
specifically as possible, the tonnages, which they could commit to diversion and/or disposal.
Any further information in this regard including information on the potential role which new
and emerging technologies could play or new information on diversion practices, as may be
forthcoming from this REOI, will be integrated into the Stage Three RFP call for waste
disposal capacity.
As shown in Figures 3.1, annual quantities requiring disposal for which Toronto has flow
control are estimated to range from 770,000 (residential - current situation) down to
approximately 240,000 tonnes per year (under a program that has achieved an 80% diversion
rate by 2021 in the City of Toronto). Under a diversion rate of 60% for the City of Toronto,
incorporating GTA Regions wastes and the IC&I waste which is currently disposed at the
Keele Valley Landfill - 500,000 tonnes per year, the annual disposal rate could reach as high
as 1.3 million tonnes (in 2002). Over the planning timeframe (from 2002 through 2021) a total
quantity ranging from 9.5 million tonnes (Toronto only - 80% diversion achieved) to 27
million tonnes (Toronto - 60% diversion achieved, IC&I and GTA Regions tonnages under
their upper end diversion programs, all included) could require disposal.
Until Toronto understands the cost and other implications associated with various approaches,
a final decision will not be made on programs, including diversion programs, which will result
on the amount of material available for disposal.
In addition to the variability in the quantities requiring disposal over the longer term,
Respondents should also note that there are daily, weekly and seasonal variations in the waste
generation pattern. Much of the daily variation can be managed by extending the hours of
transfer station operation and by the overnight storage of material within the facilities. On a
weekly basis, the total amount of material received is generally with "30% of the average
weekly quantity. The RFP document will contain detailed information on transfer station
capacities, hours of operation and historic quantities. Toronto cannot guarantee that historic
waste generation patterns will continue into the future.
3.3Other Wastes
The City of Toronto generates a range of wastes other than municipal waste, including:
sewage treatment plant biosolids, water treatment plant residues, catch basin cleanings, street
sweepings and sediments removed from stormwater ponds. From time to time these materials
have been managed at landfill facilities, e.g., disposed of or used as cover materials. Although
the purpose of the TIRM process is to address Toronto's municipal waste management needs,
the City would benefit from solutions which could also address the City's other wastes.
Therefore, Respondents to Category 2 - Proven Waste Disposal are invited to state their
capabilities and interest in managing these types of waste.
3.4 Contracting for IC&I Waste Separately from Residential Waste
A number of potential marketplace Respondents have disposal facilities that are certified to
receive solid, non-hazardous waste that originates from IC&I sources, but are not certified to
receive residential waste. This fraction of the marketplace could potentially provide Toronto
with disposal facilities for the waste the City receives from the IC&I sector.
Based on historic patterns, this waste is projected to be in the range of 100,000 to 500,000
tonnes per year. Actual quantities will be a function of waste generation rates reflective of
economic activity, the extent of waste diversion practised by the IC&I sector and marketplace
pricing for transfer, transport and disposal capacities.
Toronto wishes to know the marketplace's capabilities and interests in providing disposal
capacity for IC&I waste only, as well as IC&I in combination with residential waste.
Respondents are advised that Toronto reserves the right to contract for IC&I waste disposal in
advance of, and separately from, contracting for residential waste.
3.5 Waste Composition
Other than the assurance that Toronto and its potential GTA Region partners will use their
best efforts to receive for transfer to the successful Respondent(s) only waste that conforms
with the municipalities' rules and regulations in effect from time to time for the receipt of
waste, no other assurance is provided on waste composition or quality, nor will any guarantees
be provided regarding:
i) The composition or nature of any potentially reusable or recyclable materials within the
waste stream;
ii) The organic or moisture content of the waste stream;
iii) The energy value (e.g., MJ/kg) of the waste stream; and/or
iv) The density of the waste steam.
Notwithstanding the above, Toronto will co-operate with any Respondent who wants to
conduct a composition analysis of the waste steam. This can include providing statistical
information on the waste stream and access to transfer stations for sampling purposes.
3.6 Request for Information Regarding Quantity Requirements and Contract Terms
Given the above background, Respondents are requested to provide information on the
capacity and corresponding contract terms (in years) they are interested in providing to
Toronto. This information on disposal (Category 2) should be provided on copies of Forms
3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 (refer to Attachment B-2 of this REOI document). Respondents may express
interest in other quantity and/or term options, in addition to those detailed on Forms 3.1, 3.2
and 3.3, if they so wish (provide details).
Form 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 address the key variables associated with Toronto's disposal
requirements which include:
- variations in the quantity of material requiring management; and
- variations in the contract term over which Toronto would be willing to commit a given
quantity to a Respondent.
In Form 3.1 Respondents are requested to express their interest in:
1) managing an annual quantity range for a 5 year contract term; and
2) providing options for Toronto to extend the contract for up to three additional five (5)
year terms.
Respondents may express interest in any or all of the five (5) annual quantity range Options
shown on Form 3.1 (Options 1A through 5A). Under each Option it is Toronto's desire that a
Respondent manage any annual quantity within the range (e.g. under Option 3A, a Respondent
would receive anywhere between 500,000 and 750,000 tonnes/year).
On Form 3.2 Respondents are requested to express their interest in:
1) managing a fixed ("15%) annual quantity, within an annual quantity range, under a long
term contract, and
2) managing that fixed ("15%) annual quantity for various contract terms (10, 15 or 20
years).
Respondents may express interest in any or all of the five (5) fixed ("15%) annual quantity
Options shown on Form 3.2 (Options 1B through 5B). Under each Option it is Toronto's
desire to specify a fixed ("15%) annual quantity within the range listed (e.g., under Option 3B
Toronto could specify a fixed ("15%) annual quantity of 625,000 tonnes/year).
Form 3.3 is provided to invite Respondents to express interest in managing diminishing
tonnages over time and other innovative options they may wish to present. On Form 3.3
Respondents are requested to express their interest in managing a total amount of material
over a long term contract period without any specified information on the contract term or
annual quantities requested in Form 3.1 and 3.2. Interest may be expressed in one or more of
the Total Quantity Ranges presented on Form 3.3.
Respondents are free to refine their expressions of interest and specify:
·Other Total Quantities or Quantity Ranges,
·the long term contract period, to a maximum of 20 years, over which the specified total
amount of material would be received, (this must be specified); and
·specific limitations, if any, on the maximum or minimum quantity they are prepared to
receive in any one year. Different maximums and minimums can be proposed for different
years or time periods.
Form 3.3 is intended to give Respondents the opportunity to propose, alternative (to those
specified on Forms 3.1 and 3.2) approaches for meeting Toronto's needs.
Respondents expressing interest via Form 3.3 are invited to provide additional details on what
they are proposing and the associated benefits to Toronto.
If Respondents are not able to express interest in managing the entire quantity range within
any given Option, they should specify, on the Forms, the minimum and/or maximum quantity
within the Option range that they are interested in managing (e.g., if a Respondent had a
facility with an approval to receive up to 300,000 tonnes/year, they could choose to put "Xs"
in all boxes under Options 1 and 2 but under Option 2, specify a maximum annual quantity of
300,000 tonnes/year).
In all cases Respondents will be required to manage the daily, weekly and seasonal variations
in the quantities of material requiring management. Daily variations can generally be managed
by storing material within Toronto's transfer stations. On a weekly basis, the total quantity
requiring disposal in a given week is generally within "30% of the average week (assume 52
weeks per year). At the RFP stage historic weekly data on the quantities of material requiring
management will be made available. Toronto cannot guarantee that historic waste generation
patterns will continue into the future.
To understand which Options will be available to Toronto, Respondents are requested to
complete and submit copies of Forms 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 by placing "Xs" in the appropriate
boxes on the Forms to express their interest in proving the specified services. Respondents
should note that the RFP may also allow them to submit proposals on other unique quantity
and contract term options, in addition to those specified on the Forms, which may provide
greater value to Toronto.
Some stakeholders are concerned that a long term waste disposal contract for a large quantity
of material will prohibit achieving aggressive diversion targets. Respondents expressing
interest in managing more than 750,000 tonnes per year over a long term contract time frame
are invited to provide information on addressing this concern.
Information which a Respondent provides during Stage One - REOI, as contained in Forms
3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, will not be used to disqualify that Respondent from being invited to
participate in the Stage Two - RFP.
Toronto reserves the right to utilize the information submitted on interested options for
quantities and terms (years) in making decisions on what options will be included in the RFP.
The RFP may contain all suggested options as contained in the Forms, or limited options, in
the discretion of Toronto's Council. In responding to the categories of options as may be
formulated in the RFP, Respondents will not be restricted to the options for which they will
have expressed an interest in their EOI.
4.0 EOI RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Identification of Response Category
On the EOI submission, the Respondent must identify the response category for which
qualifications are being submitted. The response categories are described in 2.3. The manner
in which the EOI submission is to be identified is described in Section 6.6.
4.2 Overview of Two-Envelope System, Applicable to Category 2 Responses
For the purpose of identifying a qualified short list of waste disposal Respondents at Stage
Two of the TIRM process, and initially qualifying waste diversion Respondents for a waste
diversion capacity RFP, a two-envelope system is proposed. The two envelopes are described
as follows. (Note: Respondents to Category 1 - Proven Diversion Capacity and Category 3 -
New, Innovative and Emerging technologies are only required to submit a single envelope
containing the information referenced in Section 4.3).
|
General Content of Envelope |
Purpose of Envelope |
Envelope One |
-
Information required to address
REOI Mandatory Criteria.
- Declarations and Form A-1
required as per Section 6.7.
- Description of Respondent's
Experience and Capabilities.
- General Description of
Proposed Approach.
|
- To establish that the Respondent
has the necessary experience and
capabilities to address Toronto's
stated waste management
requirements.
|
Envelope Two |
- Forms 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 -
Maximum and minimum
tonnages and contract
timeframes.
- Description of proposed project
specifics, including sites.
- General description of any
partnership offer.
|
- To establish that Respondents,
short listed by virtue of their
qualifying in terms of the
information submitted in Envelope
One have specific facilities and
sites with sufficient capacity to
provide the service in which
interest is expressed.
- To identify specific sites for the
purpose of initiating public and
government agency consultation
early in Stage Three of the TIRM
process, contributing to refining the
criteria which will be used to
comparatively evaluate submissions
to any RFP.
- To facilitate consideration of the
potential for participation
opportunities in the waste
management services being
procured.
|
The short list of qualified Respondents will initially be identified based on the contents of
Envelope One. Envelope Two will be opened at the end of Stage Two only for those
Respondents that have been determined by Toronto to be qualified Respondents based on their
Envelope One submissions.
The manner in which the contents of each envelope will be evaluated is described in Section
5.0. It is important to note that both envelopes will contain information mandatory to qualify
through Stage Two, and that the EOI submission must fully address the information
requirements described herein.
4.3 Contents and Format of Envelope One
4.3.1 REOI Mandatory Criteria
The REOI mandatory criteria are identified in the tables in Attachment C.
- Table C-1Mandatory Qualification Criteria for Proven Waste Diversion Capacity
(Category 1)
- Table C-2Mandatory Qualification Criteria for Proven Waste Disposal Capacity
(Category 2)
- Table C-3Mandatory Qualification Criteria for New, Emerging and Innovative
Technologies (Category 3)
The scope of documentation and declarations provided in Envelope One must fully address
the mandatory qualification criteria for the submission's respective response Category.
4.3.2 General Description of Proposed Approach
The Respondent must provide the following general information:
- Name of technology(s) to be utilized, including transport (as discussed in Section 2.4) and
diversion/disposal process as applicable.
- General description of the processes associated with the proposed approach and
technologies.
Project specifics, as described in Section 4.4.1, are not to be included in Envelope One.
Inclusion of such information in Envelope One may result in the failure of the Respondent to
qualify through Stage Two.
4.3.3 Description of Experience and Capabilities
In addition to the references required by the REOI mandatory criteria, the Respondent must
include information that demonstrates sufficient experience and capabilities in providing
waste management services similar in scale to those required by the City of Toronto. In a brief
and succinct manner, Respondents are requested to address the issues specified below, as are
relevant to the category subject of the EOI:
Waste Diversion
- A listing of facilities developed by the Respondent and their capacity;
- A listing of facilities presently being operated by the Respondent, their capacity and actual
throughput (relate throughput to design capacity);
- Type of waste received at the facilities;
- Other information relevant to assessing the Respondent's capabilities and experiences in
developing, owning and operating diversion facilities; and
- A listing of facilities, that establish the proposed diversion capacity is proven.
Landfill
- Number of engineered sites developed;
- Sites operating and annual quantity landfilled;
- Total quantity of waste landfilled in 1996, 1997 and 1998,
- Types of waste received at the facility;
- Capability to manage wastes of the types discussed in section 3.3; and
- Other information relevant to assessing the Respondent's capabilities and experience in the
areas of environmentally sound landfill operations.
Energy From Waste
- A listing of facilities developed and their capacity;
- A listing of facilities operating, their capacity and actual throughput (throughput to design
capacity);
- Type of waste received at the facility; and
- Other information relevant to assessing the Respondent's capabilities and experiences in
developing, owning and operating incineration facilities.
Transport
(Note: The requirement to provide waste transport is applicable only to Category 2 -
Proven Waste Disposal)
- Cities served with quantities (tonnes) and distances hauled;
- Number of long distance haul vehicles currently on the road;
- Rail haul service currently provided;
- Total quantity (tonnes) of waste hauled/transported in 1996, 1997 and 1998, and
- Other information relevant to assessing the Respondent's capabilities and experience in the
area of waste hauling.
New, Emerging and Innovative Technologies
- A general description of facility layout and design concepts for the existing or proposed
facility(s).
- A listing of similar facilities that exist;
- A listing of similar facilities that are proposed and/or approved;
- Capacity and throughput of existing and proposed facilities; and
- Other information relevant to assessing the Respondent's capabilities and experience in the
area of waste management.
4.3.4 Format of Envelope One Submission
All submissions must be organized in accordance with the Table of Contents for Envelope
One Submissions presented in Attachment B. If a particular specified section is not relevant to
a Respondent's submission, the Respondent should include the section number and heading in
its EOI and write "Not Applicable" under the heading.
Failure to comply with these requirements may be a basis for rejection of the EOI.
4.4 Contents and Format of Envelope Two (Required for Category 2 - Proven Disposal
Capacity)
4.4.1 Forms 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3
Forms 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 should be completed, as discussed in Section 3.5, and included in
Envelope Two.
4.4.2 Proposed Project Specifics
The Respondent must provide the following information:
- A list of all facilities and systems to be incorporated as components into a Proposal
submission including the role of each component (e.g., primary vs. back-up).
- The specific site(s)/property location(s) where capacity exists or is to be developed. The
following should be included for each site/location:
-Legal description of property;
-Area of property (hectares);
-Map showing regional location of facility and proposed haul routes from Toronto;
-Map showing property limits and limits of facilities/disposal area; and
-Map showing land use, topographic and physiographic features on-site and within one(1)
kilometre of property limits.
- The status of property ownership for all existing and proposed facilities.
- A general description of facility layout and design concepts for the existing or proposed
facility(s).
- For all proposed facilities/systems, the status of environmental and land use approvals,
including the extent of conformance with all applicable provincial policies, with respect to
the ability to receive and process Toronto's wastes.
- For facilities/systems not yet approved for Toronto's wastes, an approvals work program
must be provided that demonstrates availability, as required by the REOI mandatory
criteria. The approvals workplan must include the following components:
-specific legislative approvals required;
-studies required to support approvals;
-outline of public/stakeholder consultation program; and
-a timeline for completion of studies, submission of applications and issuance of approvals.
- For facilities not yet constructed, a design/construction work program must be provided
that demonstrates availability, as required by the REOI mandatory criteria.
- A general description of measures that are proposed or in-place to monitor and mitigate
potential adverse impacts on public health and safety, and the environment, as broadly
defined (i.e., natural, social, cultural, economic, etc.).
- Facilities and plans for major contingencies such as border closure, labour disputes,
transport interruption.
- A listing of documentation available with respect to the existing and proposed facilities and
systems.
Respondents must address each of the above points and accordingly must propose specific
facilities at specific locations. The above information must demonstrate a Respondent's ability
to implement, in the required timeframes, their proposals at sites which they specify.
Respondents must have current possession, an option to purchase, lease or similar interest in
property for any facilities being proposed.
An EOI proposing a proven waste diversion or disposal facility at site "to be determined" will
not qualify through Stage Two of the TIRM process.
4.4.3 General Description of Participation Offers
As described in Section 2.5 of this REOI, Toronto will entertain offers of participation
opportunities from Respondents. Those who wish to do so, in the Envelope Two
documentation, should describe the general nature of any such offers.
The format of such offers is at the discretion of the Respondent. Factors that Toronto intends
to consider in evaluating any participation offer are described in Section 2.5. Respondents are
invited to identify, in their submission, any additional considerations they feel are important.
4.4.4 Format of Envelope Two Submission
All submissions must be organized in accordance with the Table of Contents of Envelope
Two Submissions (Attachment B). If a particular specified section is not relevant to a
Respondent's submission, the Respondent should include the section number and heading in
its EOI and write "Not Applicable" under the heading.
Failure to comply with these requirements may be a basis for rejection of the EOI.
4.5 No Price Information to be Submitted in EOI
Respondents to this REOI shall not submit any price information, including price information
as may relate to Toronto partnership offers.
Any EOI submissions including price information will be rejected.
5.0 EVALUATION OF EOI RESPONSES
Toronto requires that its potential public and private sector partners/service providers are both
well established and financially sound. In seeking provision of long term waste management
capacity, it is crucial that the possibility of exposing the City to financial and/or environmental
liability be minimized. Given this requirement, Respondents, in their EOIs, must provide the
information and security required to meet the specified mandatory criteria. Information,
requirements and the Form of Submission are described in Section 4.0.
5.1 Consideration of Envelope One
Within Envelope One, Respondents must meet each and every one of the mandatory
qualification criteria as specified in Table C-1, C-2 or C-3 depending on the category of the
response. Failure to meet any of the criteria or to provide other required information (i.e.,
forms, declarations and descriptions) may disqualify a submission from further consideration.
5.2 Consideration of Envelope Two for Qualified Respondents
Those Respondents that qualify through Envelope One of the REOI process will have
Envelope Two opened. This second envelope must contain the information required as per
Section 4.4. Failure to meet any of the mandatory criteria and or failure to provide any of the
requested information may disqualify a submission.
The content of Envelope Two will be evaluated to ensure all content requirements have been
met but, assuming fulfilment of all requirements, the nature of the information provided will
not restrict Respondents to which options they may respond as put forward by Toronto's
Council in the release of the RFP.
5.3 Evaluation Schedule
REOI (Diversion, Disposal, New and Emerging Technologies)
The schedule for evaluation of the EOI's is as follows:
TIRM Stages 2 and 3 (REOI and RFP)
Works and Utilities Committee Meeting
Revised REOI Submitted for Approval |
April 12, 1999 |
Council Approves REOI |
April 13, 14, 15, 1999 |
REOI Issued |
April 26, 1999 |
EOI's Received |
May 31, 1999 |
* Presentations to Proposed Special Meeting of
Works and Utilities Committee by REOI
Respondents |
Early June, 1999 |
* Public Deputations |
June 16, 1999 Committee Meeting |
Project Team Reviews Responses |
June 1 to June 25, 1999 |
Staff Report on Qualified Respondents
* Public Deputations |
July 14, 1999 Committee Meeting |
Public Notification of Potential Disposal Sites |
Week of July 19, 1999 |
|
|
RFP for Disposal |
|
|
|
Consultation on Disposal RFP Criterisa |
July 19 to August 27, 1999 |
* Public Deputations to Special Proposed Meeting
of Works and Utilities Committee |
Early September, 1999 |
Present RFP to Committee/Council
* Public Deputations |
September, 1999 Committee |
Council Approves Disposal RFP |
September, 1999 |
Issue Disposal RFP |
October 1, 1999 |
* Presentations to Proposed Special Meeting of
Works and Utilities Committee by RFP
Respondents |
Mid-November, 1999 |
Disposal Proposals Received |
December 15, 1999 |
Evaluation of Proposals |
December 15, 1999 to January 30, 2000 |
Staff report on Top-Qualified Respondents to
Committee/Council
* Public Deputations |
February, 2000 |
Council Approves Top Qualified Respondents |
February, 2000 |
|
|
Due Diligence & Contract Negotiations for Disposal |
|
Due Diligence & Contract Negotiations |
February to August, 2000 |
Staff Report to Committee and Council with
recommendations for Award of Contract(s) |
September, 2000 |
Preferred Contractor(s) Commissions Facilities |
2001 |
New Disposal Capacity available for January 1, 2002. |
|
|
RFP for Diversion and New and Emerging Technologies |
|
|
An RFP for proven diversion and new and emerging technologies will follow the RFP for
disposal in a sequential manner. The schedule for this RFP is provided below. |
REOI Issued |
April 26, 1999 |
REOI's Received |
May 31, 1999 |
Project Team Reviews responses and prepares staff
report |
June/August,1999 |
Staff Report on Scope and Schedule for RFP
* Public Deputations |
September, 1999 Committee Meeting |
Consultation with Stakeholders on RFP, Scope,
Methodology & Criteria |
October, 1999 |
Project Team Drafts RFP |
November, 1999 |
Staff Presents RFP Document, Including Evaluation
Methodology to Committee/Council
* Public Deputations |
December, 1999 Committee Meeting |
Council Approves RFP |
January, 2000 |
Issue RFP |
January 28, 2000 |
Proposals Received |
March 30, 2000 |
Evaluation of Proposals and Review of Existing
Diversion Program Strategy |
April 1, 2000 to June 1, 2000 |
* Presentations to Proposed Special Meeting of
Works and Utilities Committee by RFP
Respondents |
Mid-March, 2000 |
Staff Report on Top Qualified Respondents and
Diversion Program Strategy to Committee/Council
* Public Deputations |
June, 2000 |
Council Approves Top-Qualified Respondents |
June, 2000 |
|
|
Due Diligence and Contract Negotiations for Diversion and New and Emerging
Technologies |
Due Diligence and Contract Negotiations |
July, 2000 to December, 2000 |
Staff Report to Committee and Council
* Public Deputations |
January, 2001 |
Council Approves Award of Contracts |
February, 2001 |
|
|
Preferred Contractor(s)/Partner(s) and Potentially
City of Toronto Commissions Facilities |
2001 - 2005 |
City of Toronto's Best Efforts to Address 50%
Waste Diversion Target |
2006, or Sooner |
6.0 REOI RULES AND PROCEDURES
6.1 Authorized Contact Person (ACP)
The Authorized Contact Person' (ACP) for this REOI is:
Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S.
Manager, Strategic Planning
Solid Waste Management Services
Works and Emergency Services
City of Toronto Metro Hall
55 John Street
Station 1180, 19th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5V 3C6
Phone: (416) 392-9744
FAX: (416) 392-4745
E-mail: lawson_oates@toronto.ca
Anti-lobbying Clause
The REOI document directs all potential Respondents to request the document through one
member of staff, and requires all questions concerning the document to be in writing and
directed to the same staff member. The intent of these provisions is to ensure a single point of
contact and avoid any confusion or contradictory advice being provided to Respondents. The
prohibition against lobbying ("anti-lobbying clause") outlined below will be effective from the
date of the issuance of the REOI until a contract(s) is reached at the conclusion of the
subsequent RFP stage. The purpose of such a provision is to alleviate any intense lobbying
associated with the proposals that might be expected in a project of this size and scope and
ensure the provision of a consistent level of information to elected officials and staff in a
transparent process.
The anti-lobbying clause does not prohibit Respondents from making representations to the
media. In order to provide a channel of communication with Councillors. Respondents will be
able to make deputations to any public meeting of Works and Utilities Committee. In
addition, it is contemplated that there will be one or more special informal briefings for all
Members of Council, following the identification of the top qualified proposals at the end of
the RFP stage, in order to provide an opportunity for the short-listed Respondents to present
the benefits of their proposals.
City of Toronto
Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process
Request for Expressions of Interest and Request for Proposals
Anti-Lobbying Clause
Solicitation
If any director, officer, employee, agent or other representative of a Respondent, including
any other parties that may be involved in a joint venture or a consortium with the Respondent,
makes, from and after the date of issuance of this Request for Expressions of Interest, any
representation or solicitation to any member of City Council ("Member") or any official,
employee or agent of the City of Toronto, with the exception of Mr. Lawson Oates of the
Works and Emergency Services Department (the "Authorized Contact Person"), with respect
to the Respondent's proposal or any other Respondent's proposal, City Council shall be
entitled to reject the Respondent's proposal.
A representative for the purposes of this requirement can be considered to be anything said or
written to any Member, official, employee or agent which provides information advancing the
interests of a proposal.
This requirement does not extend to representations made to the Authorized Contact Person
or to any public deputation made to City Council's Works and Utilities Committee in
accordance with the City's Procedural By-law, including any special briefing sessions for
members as may be authorized by City Council. The requirement also does not extend to
statements made only to the reporting media.
Should a Respondent desire that any information be presented to Members, the Respondent
may request the Authorized Contact Person to do so and that person will distribute such
information to all Members and appropriate staff. Respondents are advised that if any
Member directly approaches a Respondent for information, the Respondent is at jeopardy if
he or she does make any representation to any Member in response.
|
6.2 Communications
From the date this REOI is issued, no member, employee, agent or representative of the City
of Toronto, other than the ACP is to be contacted for information or clarification regarding
this REOI. Contact with any member, employee, agent or representative of the City of
Toronto, other than the ACP, with regard to this REOI may result in rejection of Respondent's
EOI.
Any requests for information or clarification to the ACP shall be made in writing and no later
than May 10, 1999. All such correspondence received and documentation of responses given
will be submitted to the TIRM Project Public Record File.
6.3 Acquisition of REOI
Respondents wishing to receive an official copy of this REOI must do so in writing (delivery
of the request by facsimile is acceptable).
The REOI must be requested from the Authorized Contact Person. In this request, parties
must clearly identify their name, address, fax number and contact person(s).
EOIs from organizations that fail to formally request an official copy of the REOI may be
rejected.
6.4 Briefing Session
A briefing session will be held within seven (7) days of the release of the REOI. The purpose
is to provide a question and answer opportunity to potential Respondents. The briefing session
is not mandatory. Minutes of the briefing session will be taken and sent out within seven (7)
days of the briefing session, to all who request(ed) an official copy of the REOI.
6.5 EOI Submission Location and Deadline
Expressions of Interest will be received by the City of Toronto, at the address noted below,
until 4:00 p.m. (EDST), on (the "Submission Date"). On receipt, the EOI will be marked with
the time and date the EOI is received by the designated representative of the City. The use of
mail or courier for delivery of an EOI will be at the sole risk of the Respondent.
EOI must be delivered to:
Technical Services Division
Works and Emergency Services Department
Metro Hall
55 John Street
Station 1180, 20th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5V 3C6 Attention: Tony Pagnanelli
(Note: Fax transmissions will not be accepted.)
Under no circumstances will EOIs be considered which are receive after 4:00 p.m., Toronto
time on the "Submission Date" and such EOIs will be returned unopened.
6.6 Marking of EOI Submission
Expressions of Interest shall be addressed to the Mayor and members of Council, City of
Toronto, in sealed package clearly marked as follows;
"EXPRESSION OF INTEREST TO PROVIDE
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES"
and on a separate line:
"CATEGORY 1 - PROVEN WASTE DIVERSION CAPACITY"
or:
"CATEGORY 2 - PROVEN WASTE DISPOSAL CAPACITY"
or:
"CATEGORY 3 - NEW, EMERGING AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES"
In addition, the package should be clearly marked with the name and return address of the
Respondent.
Each submission may only relate to one response category. Individual Respondents may make
separate submissions under each of the response categories.
Each EOI submission pertaining to category 2 must contain two sealed envelopes marked as
"Envelope One" and "Envelope Two" as per Section 4.2 of this REOI. Each EOI submission
pertaining to Categories 1 and 3 must contain one sealed envelope as per Section 4.2.
All materials and envelopes contained in each submission should also be marked with the
name of the Respondent.
6.7 Declarations
The following declarations must be included in "Envelope One".
6.7.1 Letter of Transmittal
An EOI must include a transmittal letter, attesting to the accuracy of the information contained
in the EOI. The transmittal letter must be signed by an individual authorized to execute
binding legal documents on behalf of the Respondent (including any 'joint venture' or
consortium). The transmittal letter must clearly identify the legal name and address (mailing
and local street address) and telephone and facsimile numbers, of the person/s submitting the
EOI, and the name and title of the signatory(s). If more than one corporate entity is involved in
a submission, the arrangements between the various entities must be clearly explained. The
party or parties who it is proposed will enter into a contractual arrangement with Toronto must
be clearly identified.
6.7.2 Joint Ventures and Consortium
The Declaration of EOI Submission (Form A-1) must becompleted. If the submission is from
a joint venture or a consortium, the Declaration of EOI Submission must be signed by a
signing officer of each of the firms in the joint venture or consortium.
Respondents should note that the City may reject submissions made in response to the Stage 3
RFP, if Respondents change the composition of the Principal Participants of any joint venture
or consortium, and the participants' roles and functions, from those participants, roles and
functions as were proposed in Respondents' Stage 2 submissions. Respondents contemplating
making changes should advise the City of their intent in order to determine the City's
willingness to entertain such changes.
6.7.3 Notarized Certificate of Incorporation
The Respondent must provide a copy of the notarized Certificate of Incorporation within the
Province of Ontario of the entity submitting the Proposal. This Certificate must meet the
incorporation requirements of Criterion 4 in the REOI Mandatory Criteria (See Attachment
'C').
If the Proposal is from a joint venture or a consortium, notarized copies of Certificates of
Incorporation of all proposed contracting parties of the joint venture or consortium members
must be provided.
6.7.4 Evidence of Insurability
The Respondent must provide current (i.e., 1998/99) evidence of insurability of a minimum:
- $5,000,000 for Category 1 - Proven Waste Diversion Proposals;
- $5,000,000 for Category 2 - Proven Waste Disposal Proposals; and
- $5,000,000 for Category 3 - New, Emerging and Innovative Technologies Proposals.
6.8 Withdrawal or Qualification of EOI
A submitted EOI is irrevocable by the Respondent and will remain in effect and open for
acceptance by the City of Toronto for a period of 180 days after the last day for the
submission of an EOI. A Respondent who has already submitted an EOI may submit further
EOIs at any time up to the "Submission Date". The last EOI received shall supersede and
replace all other EOIs previously submitted by that Respondent (for individual categories).
A Respondent may withdraw or qualify its EOI at any time up to the "Submission Date" by
submitting a letter bearing the signature of an authorized signing officer under corporate seal,
as in its EOI, and delivered to the City of Toronto, in the manner as indicated in Section 6.5.
Submissions must be received in sufficient time to be marked with the time and date before
4:00 p.m. on the "Submission Date". the Respondent shall show the entity's name and the
designation of the EOI, as described in Section 6.6, on the package containing such letter.
6.9 Omissions, Discrepancies and Interpretations
Should a Respondent find omissions from or discrepancies in any of the REOI documents or
should a Respondent be in doubt as to the meaning of any part of such REOI documents, the
Respondent should notify the ACP, in writing, no later than May 3, 1999. If the City considers
that a correction, explanation or interpretation is necessary or desirable, an Addendum will be
issued by May 19, 1999 to all who formally obtained a copy of the REOI.
6.10 Deficiencies in Proposals
All EOIs shall be in ink or in type only.
EOIs shall be in ink or in type only.
EOIs which are incomplete, conditional, illegible or obscure, or that contain conditions not
requested, reservations, erasures, alterations (unless properly and clearly made and initialled
by the Respondent's signing officer) or irregularities of any kind, may be rejected.
Toronto reserves the right to request clarification where any Respondent's intent is unclear and
may waive or request amendment of any irregularity or of any omission in the information that
is required to be submitted.
6.11 Treatment of Confidential Information
The EOI will become the property of the City of Toronto and will not be returned to the
Respondent subject to the provisions in Sections 6.12 and 6.13 of this REOI document.
Respondents should clearly identify and make easily separable any information presented in
their EOI deemed to be confidential. In addition, the Respondent should provide a rationale as
to why the information should not be released under the Municipal Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act (the "FOI Act"). The rationale for keeping information
confidential under this legislation includes;
a) Trade secrets of the Respondent;
b) Financial, commercial, scientific or technical information, the disclosure of which could
reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain or could reasonably be
expected to prejudice the competitive position of the Respondent; and/or
c) Information, the disclosure of which, could reasonably be expected to interfere with
contractual or other negotiations of the Respondent with other parties.
Subject to its obligations under the FOI Act, the City will make all reasonable efforts not to
disclose information marked as confidential.
Notwithstanding the above, Toronto may be obligated to disclose the information under the
provisions of the FOI Act. The City, therefore, does not guarantee that information marked
confidential will not be disclosed and shall not under any circumstances be held liable by a
Respondent for damages or losses which result from the disclosure of such information. For
more information about the FOI Act, please contact the Authorized Contact Person.
6.12 Disclaimers
All Respondents are advised that this REOI constitutes only an invitation to submit an EOI to
the City of Toronto and that any Respondent choosing to accept this invitation will not be
entitled to reimbursement from the City for any costs incurred in the preparation and
submission of an EOI.
The City's receipt or discussion of any information (including information contained in any
proposal, ideas, models, drawings or other materials communicated or exhibited by any
Respondent or on its behalf) from the Respondent shall not impose any obligations
whatsoever on Toronto.
Toronto reserves the right to accept or reject any or all expressions of interest, or any
subsequent proposal, in its sole discretion and to negotiate with any or all respondents whether
prior to any award or after.
Toronto, its councillors, officers, agents, employees, or representatives, make no
representation that:
i) the process, by issuance of this REOI or of any subsequent RFP, to acquire solid waste
management services from the private sector will continue; or
ii) as a result of this REOI or the issuance of any subsequent RFP, Toronto will enter into a
contract or contracts for solid waste management services.
The City, and its respective councillors, officers, agents, employees and representatives shall
not be responsible for any liabilities, costs, expenses, loss or damage incurred, sustained or
suffered by any Respondent(s) prior to, subsequent to, or by reason of, the acceptance or the
rejection by Toronto of any EOI, or any subsequent proposal, or by reason of any delay in the
acceptance of an EOI or proposal.
6.13 Return or "Envelope Two" to Respondents Not Qualifying
The sealed envelope marked "Envelope Two" will be returned unopened to all Respondents
not meeting the REOI mandatory criteria for Envelope One and, as such, not qualifying
through Stage Two of the TIRM process.
6.14 Security Deposits
For Respondents qualifying through Stage Two of the TIRM process, security deposits will be
required as indicated in the REOI mandatory criteria. Details on the required form of the
security deposits will be provided in the RFP to be issued at Stage Three of the TIRM process.
For the purpose of the Stage Two REOI, the Respondent must provide the following:
a) agreement, via the Declaration of EOI Submission (Form A-1), to provide the specified
security deposit amount, and
b) evidence, in the form of a letter from a bank or trust company and surety having their
principal place of business in the Province of Ontario, demonstrating the ability of the
Respondent to obtain the required operating security, as specified in the REOI mandatory
criteria, if awarded a contract.
7.0 NEXT STEPS PERTAINING TO CATEGORY 2 - PROVEN WASTE DISPOSAL
7.1 Public Notification - Qualifying Respondents
The City of Toronto will place advertisements in an appropriate community newspaper where
successful Respondents' sites are located. These notices will be placed within the week
following the date that Toronto informs successful Respondents of their having qualified. The
notices will indicate that a proposal is currently under consideration by the City and will invite
participation in the process of refining the criteria to be applied in evaluating proposals
received in Stage Three.
A City and a Respondent contact name and telephone number will be provided in the ads
where information can be gained about the project. Site specific inquiries will be directed to
the Respondent. The Respondent should keep track of the number, origin and nature of
inquiries related to the TIRM process.
A brief summary of the proposal particulars must be submitted to the City for distribution.
This should include the Respondent name, site location, and a brief facility and operations
description. In addition to the project summary submission, Respondents are requested to
provide comment to the City on the newspaper(s) in which the notices could most
appropriately be given.
Subject to the provisions within Section 6, all of the information (including site
location/ownership and other project specifics included in Envelope Two) submitted by the
Respondents who qualify through Stage Two will be made public by Toronto (i.e., placed on
the project public record file).
7.2 Stage Three - Request for Proposal (RFP)
Stage Three of Toronto's TIRM process will involve preparing and issuing a Request for
Proposal (RFP) to the Respondents qualifying through Stage Two. Detailed Proposals will be
comparatively evaluated using multi-faceted environmental, social and financial criteria. Top
ranked proposals will be the subject of Stage Four - Due Diligence Reviews and Contract
Negotiations.
7.2.1 Status of RFP Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation criteria for the RFP's to be received at Stage Three were identified, in draft, in the
Stage One Planning Document. At this time, the evaluation criteria remain in draft form and
Toronto is soliciting stakeholder input on finalization of these criteria. The final evaluation
criteria and details on the RFP evaluation methodology will be included in the Stage Three
RFP document.
7.3 Stage Four - Due Diligence and Contract Negotiations
The top ranked Proposals identified at Stage Three will be placed on the TIRM process public
record prior to Council deciding on initiation of the due diligence reviews and contract
agreement negotiations processes, outlined below.
For top ranked Proposals, Toronto may conduct a financial/technical/legal due diligence
review of facilities/sites and Respondents and may negotiate contract agreements with
Respondents. The purpose of the due diligence review is to allow Toronto to obtain a detailed
understanding of Respondents' capabilities to deliver long term waste disposal capacity and
any potential liabilities Toronto would accrue from using such capacity. Toronto must be
satisfied in regard to these critical matters in its sole discretion. Therefore, Toronto may
require that the top qualified Respondents provide additional information pertaining to, but
not limited to, the following:
- facility operating, maintenance, monitoring, reporting procedures regarding environmental
regulatory compliance;
- corporate/facility environmental management systems and structures, including for
example, environmental regulatory compliance status;
- programs and mechanisms for managing community relations;
- site agreements, land ownership;
- land-use regulatory compliance;
- labour relations and occupational health and safety regulatory compliance;
- inter-jurisdictional matters (e.g., circumstances of the Canada-USA border regarding
export regulations and policy, risk characterization regarding USA "Super-Fund" liability,
etc.)
- commercial (including business and property tax) regulatory compliance; and,
- project financing and economics (e.g., availability and security of markets/revenues derived
from disposal of wastes other than Toronto's wastes, or sale of recovered energy).
Toronto will negotiate contract agreements with the top qualified proposals chosen from the
Stage Three process. In this way, Toronto will be able to negotiate agreements in a
competitive marketplace context.
Following completion of agreement negotiations, Toronto will submit a report on the TIRM
process to Council. The report will provide a statement of the outcome of Toronto's due
diligence review and contract agreement negotiation processes and will describe the City's
intended long term waste disposal capacity solution. This reporting will occur prior to staff
making recommendations to Council and subsequent approval of a contract agreement(s).
7.4 Future Directions
The above outline of the TIRM process' next steps pertains to waste disposal. The TIRM
process is also designed to engage the market plan to provide proven diversion and new and
emerging technology proposals. Through this REOI Respondents to this two categories are
called upon to respond in order to potentially qualify for a subsequent RFP, which will be
issued after the Disposal RFP (see Section 5.3 for the project schedule).
ATTACHMENT A:
DECLARATION OF EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
FORM A-1: DECLARATION OF EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (EOI) SUBMISSION
FORM A.1
DECLARATION OF EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (EOI) SUBMISSION
TO THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THE CITY OF TORONTO,
55 JOHN STREET, 2ND FLOOR, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5V 3C6.
The Respondent
1.Confirms that no person, firm or corporation has any interest in the EOI other than the
Respondent and the persons, firms or corporations listed in Column I below who have the
respective interest set out opposite under Column II:
Column IColumn II
1. ___________________________________________________
(insert NIL if this is the case)
2. ___________________________________________________
1. This EOI is submitted by the Respondent without any connection, knowledge,
comparison of figures or arrangements with any other person or persons submitting an EOI for
the same work and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud.
2. No member of the Council and no officer or employee of the City of Toronto, is, will be,
or has become interested, directly or indirectly, as a partner, stockholder, surety or otherwise,
howsoever, in the facilities or services being the subject of the said EOI or in the supplies to
be used therein, or in any of the monies to be derived therefrom.
Dated at _______________ this _________ day of _________________, 1999.
I/We have the authority to bind
the Corporation___________________________
(Name of Respondent)
___________________________ c/s
(Signature of Authorized Signing Officer)
____________________________
(Position)
A. The address of the Respondent is:
____________________________________
____________________________________
Telephone:Fax:
B. The persons to contact at the Respondent
respecting this Proposal are:
1. 2.
Name ______________________________________________________
Title _______________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT B:
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST CONTENT REQUIREMENTS
ATTACHMENT B-1:
CONTENTS FOR EOI ENVELOPE ONE SUBMISSIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR
EOI ENVELOPE ONE SUBMISSIONS
Letter of Transmittal
PART A:DECLARATION FORMS AND DOCUMENTS
Form A-1 Declaration of EOI Submission
Notarized Certificate(s) of Incorporation
PART B:INFORMATION ADDRESSING REOI MANDATORY CRITERIA
(as outlined in Attachment C)
B.1 Criterion 1 - Waste Management Capacity
B.2 Criterion 2 - Availability of Waste Management Capacity
B.3Criterion 3 - Proven Technology
B.4 Criterion 4 - Incorporation in Ontario
B.5 Criterion 5 - Audited Financial Statements
B.6 Criterion 6 - Security and Evidence of Financial Capability
- Commitment to Provide a Letter of Credit or Bid Bond
- Commitment to Provide Operating Security
- Letter of Credit
- Bond
B.7Criterion 7 - Existing Business Partnerships/Joint Ventures
B.8Criterion 8 - References
PART C:GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED APPROACH
C.1Name of Technologies
C.2General Description of Processes
PART D:EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITIES
ATTACHMENT B-2:
CONTENTS FOR EOI ENVELOPE TWO SUBMISSIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR
EOI ENVELOPE TWO SUBMISSIONS
PART E:PROPOSED PROJECT SPECIFICS
FORM 3.1 AND/OR FORM 3.2
E.1List of Proposed Facilities and Systems
E.2Description of Sites/Property Locations
E.3Status of Property Ownership
E.4Facility Layout and Design Concepts
E.5Environmental and Land Use Approvals
E.6Approvals Work Plan
E.7Design/Construction Work Plan
E.8Mitigative Measures
E.9Facilities and Plans for Contingencies
E.10List of Documentation
PART F:PARTNERSHIP OFFERS
Form 3.l
Form 3.2
Form 3.3
ATTACHMENT C:
REOI MANDATORY CRITERIA
TABLE C-1: PROVEN WASTE DIVERSION
TABLE C-2: PROVEN WASTE DISPOSAL
TABLE C-3: NEW, EMERGING AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
TABLE C-1
Mandatory Qualification Criteria for
Proven Diversion Capacity
(Category 1)
Criteria: |
1 |
Respondent must demonstrate that it can provide at least 5 years of mixed waste
and/or source separated organics diversion capacity to Toronto. Capacity shall be
between the range of 50,000 tonnes per year to 300,000 tonnes per year. |
2 |
Respondent must provide sufficient information to show that capacity will be
available without restriction to Toronto not later than January 1, 2003 and that all
necessary approvals for this capacity must be in place by January 1, 2002. |
3 |
All capacity must involve technologies/facilities that are either:
-
technologies clearly proven in operation for a minimum of one (1) year dealing
with a waste stream similar in composition to Toronto's at a capacity not less than
10% of the capacity the Respondent bids to Toronto, or
- facilities which currently hold a Certificate of Approval to accept the waste stream
at the capacity the Respondent bids to Toronto.
If a Respondent's proposed facility does not currently have a Certificate of Approval
to accept the solid waste resource stream at the capacity the Respondent bids to
Toronto then the Respondent must provide sufficient information to show that the
technologies/facilities can manage a waste stream similar to Toronto's at the capacity
the Respondent bids to Toronto. This information must include complete
documentation and evaluation of performance claims, including operating data and
other important information (e.g., the ability to scale-up the technology). This
verification of performance must be conducted by an independent engineering agent.
Respondent must demonstrate that it has at least one (1) year of related operating
experience. |
4 |
Respondent (or lead member of any consortium or joint venture) must be incorporated
in Ontario as a business and have at least three (3) years of related business
experience. (Refer to Section 6.7.3 of this REOI document). |
5 |
The Respondent must provide sufficient information about financial strength and
stability to establish that it has the financial resources to undertake the services and
facilities which are the subject of the EOI. Therefore the Respondent must provide:
a) Audited financial statements covering the last three (3) fiscal years indicating
substantial financial assurance for the services and facilities subject to the EOI. (If the
Respondent is a private organization, audited financial statements or equivalent
business financial performance documentation may be submitted and Toronto will
keep this information in confidence, subject to any requirements of law).
b) A letter from the Respondent's financial institution, indicating the Respondent's
financial capability to carry out the project for the proposed tonnage quantities and
within the timeframes indicated by the Respondent.
c) A letter from a bank or surety stating that a letter of credit or bid bond in the
amount of $75,000 (for up to 100,000 tonnes per year) or $200,000 (for >100,000
tonnes per year), can be provided should the Respondent be invited to submit a
detailed proposal. This security would accompany the proposal.
d) A letter from a bank or surety stating that a Respondent can provide a letter or
bid bond in an RFP response securing the proper operations of the Respondent's
proposed facility should it be awarded a contract.
- The irrevocable letter of credit will be in the amount of 20% of the estimated
annual value of the contract plus;
- The bond will be in the amount of 40% of the estimated annual value of the
contract.
This security shall and must remain in effect throughout the duration of the contract. |
|
e) A letter from an insurance company identifying that the respondent can obtain
liability insurance to a minimum of $5,000,000. This insurance must be with a
recognized company currently incorporated within the Province of Ontario.
|
6 |
Respondent must provide details of any and all existing business partnership(s) or
joint venture relationships, including the Respondent's (and each member of the
partnership(s)/joint venture(s)) equity position and decision-making authority within
the partnership(s) that relate to the Respondent's bid to Toronto.
Note, "Partnership or Joint Venture", for purposes of this criteria, does not pertain to
potential Toronto partnership offers, but rather, pertains to the Respondent's business
structure, as exists or is proposed to exist, exclusive of any Toronto partnership role.
Notarized copies of Certificates of Incorporation of all proposed contracting parties of
the joint venture or consortium members must be provided. |
7 |
Respondent must provide letters of reference from the public jurisdictions
(municipalities) in which the Respondent has operating facilities, to a maximum of
three (3) municipalities. Respondents should detail the relationship of the Respondent
with the municipalities, including whether or not any agreements exist between the
Respondent and the municipality; if such agreements exist, the letters must state that
the Respondent is meeting the commitments of the agreement. |
8 |
Respondent must provide letters from the Environmental Authorities regulating the
Respondent's operating facilities, pertaining to the facilities' environmental
performance, to a maximum of three (3) Regulators. These "letters" can be in the form
of a statement or similar documentation from the Regulator(s) that the Respondent
has submitted annual monitoring and operations reports for the waste diversion
facility which are in use and have been found to be acceptable by the Regulator. The
reports must address the matter of compliance with environmental regulatory
standards and requirements. |
TABLE C-2
Mandatory Qualification Criteria for
Proven Disposal Capacity
(Category 2)
Criteria: |
1 |
Respondent must demonstrate that it can provide at least 5 years of disposal capacity
to Toronto. Capacity shall be a minimum of 100,000 tonnes per year. Capacity may be
proposed for one or more increments of five (5) years and or for fixed long term
contract periods.
Interest in various capacity and contract term options must be expressed by marking
"Xs" in the appropriate boxes on the submitted copies of Forms 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.
Respondents may express interest in other options, in addition to those indicated on
Forms 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, if they so choose. |
2 |
Respondent must provide sufficient information to show that capacity proposed for
the period 2002-2007 will be available without restriction to Toronto on July 1, 2002
and that all necessary approvals for this capacity must be in place by July 1, 2001;
and
Capacity proposed for the period 2007-2022 will be available without restriction to
Toronto on January 1, 2007. All necessary approvals for this capacity must be in place
by January 1, 2005.
Respondents may propose an earlier start date for the "second period" (i.e., earlier
than January 1, 2007). However, this capacity must be "backstopped" with capacity
that is approved by July 1, 2001 and in place by July 1, 2002. |
3 |
All capacity must involve technologies/facilities that are either:
- clearly proven in operation for a minimum of one (1) year at a capacity not less
than 10% of the capacity the Respondent bids to Toronto, or
- facilities which currently hold a Certificate of Approval to accept the waste stream
at the capacity the Respondent bids to Toronto.
If a Respondent's proposed facility does not currently have a Certificate of Approval
to accept the waste stream at the capacity the Respondent bids to Toronto, then the
Respondent must provide sufficient information to show that the
technologies/facilities can manage the waste stream at the capacity the Respondent
bids to Toronto. This information must include complete documentation and
evaluation of performance claims, including operating data and other important
information (e.g., the ability to scale-up the technology). This verification of
performance must be conducted by an independent engineering agent.
Respondent must demonstrate that it has at least one (1) year of related operating
experience. |
4 |
Respondent (or lead member of any consortium or joint venture) must be incorporated
in Ontario as a business and have at least three (3) years of related business
experience. (Refer to Section 6.7.3 of this REOI document). |
5 |
The Respondent must provide sufficient information about financial strength and
stability to establish that it has the financial resources to undertake the services and
facilities which are the subject of the EOI. Therefore the Respondent must provide:
a) Audited financial statements covering the last three (3) fiscal years indicating
substantial financial assurance for the services and facilities subject to the EOI. (If the
Respondent is a private organization, audited financial statements or equivalent
business financial performance documentation may be submitted and Toronto will
keep this information in confidence, subject to any requirements of law).
b) A letter from the Respondent's financial institution, indicating the Respondent's
financial capability to carry out the project for the proposed tonnage quantities and
within the timeframes indicated by the Respondent in Forms 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. |
|
c) A letter from a bank or surety stating that a letter of credit or bid bond in the
amount of $450,000 (for 100,000 to 500,000 tonnes per year) or $900,000 (for
>500,000 tonnes per year), can be provided if the Respondent is invited to submit a
detailed proposal at Stage 3 (RFP).
d) A letter from a bank or surety stating that a Respondent can provide a letter or
bid bond in an RFP response securing the proper operations of the Respondent should
it be awarded a contract (based on the timeframes and tonnages as expressed by the
Respondent's proposed facility in Forms 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3).
- The irrevocable letter of credit will be in the amount of 30% of the estimated
annual value of the contract plus;
- The bond will be in the amount of 70% of the estimated annual value of the
contract.
This security shall and must remain in effect throughout the duration of the contract.
e) A letter from an insurance company identifying that the respondent can obtain
liability insurance to a minimum of $5,000,000. This insurance must be with a
recognized company currently incorporated within the Province of Ontario.
|
6 |
Respondent must provide details of any and all existing business partnership(s) or
joint venture relationships, including the Respondent's (and each member of the
partnership(s)/joint venture(s)) equity position and decision-making authority within
the partnership(s) that relate to the Respondent's bid to Toronto.
Note, "Partnership or Joint Venture", for purposes of this criteria, does not pertain to
potential Toronto partnership offers, but rather, pertains to the Respondent's business
structure, as exists or is proposed to exist, exclusive of any Toronto partnership role.
Notarized copies of Certificates of Incorporation of all proposed contracting parties of
the joint venture or consortium members must be provided. |
7 |
Respondent must provide letters of reference from the public jurisdictions
(municipalities) in which the Respondent has operating facilities, to a maximum of
three (3) municipalities. Respondents should detail the relationship of the Respondent
with the municipalities, including whether or not any agreements exist between the
Respondent and the municipality; if such agreements exist, the letters must state that
the Respondent is meeting the commitments of the agreement. |
8 |
Respondent must provide letters from the Environmental Authorities regulating the
Respondent's operating facilities, pertaining to the facilities' environmental
performance, to a maximum of three (3) Regulators. These "letters" can be in the form
of a statement or similar documentation from the Regulator(s) that the Respondent
has submitted annual monitoring and operations reports for the waste disposal facility
which are in use and have been found to be acceptable by the Regulator. The reports
must address the matter of compliance with environmental regulatory standards and
requirements. |
TABLE C-3
Mandatory Qualification Criteria for
New, Emerging and Innovative Technologies
(Category 3)
Criteria: |
1 |
Respondent may propose providing capacity that shall not be greater than 100,000
tonnes per year of mixed waste and/or source separated organic waste. |
2 |
Capacity may be proposed for any time interval up to 20 years that a Respondent
deems appropriate. Respondent must provide sufficient information to indicate that all
necessary approvals for this capacity will be in place by January 1, 2002. |
3 |
All submissions with capacities up to 50,000 tonnes per year must involve
technologies that have been clearly proven for a waste stream similar in composition to
Toronto's at a pilot scale which operates at not less than one percent of the capacity the
Respondent bids to Toronto, and must have been in operation for a period of not less
than six months.
All submissions with capacities between 50,000 and 100,000 tonnes per year must
involve technologies clearly proven at a pilot scale which operate at not less than 10%
of the capacity the respondent bids to Toronto, and must have been in operation at that
capacity for a period of not less than six months.
For all submissions, irrespective of capacity, complete documentation and evaluation
of performance claims must be submitted, including operating data and other important
information (e.g., the ability to scale up the technology). This verification of
performance must be conducted by an independent engineering agent and be
completed and made available to the City of Toronto by January 1, 2001. |
4 |
Respondent (or lead member of any consortium or joint venture) must be incorporated
in Ontario as a business and have at least three (3) years of related business experience.
(Refer to Section 6.7.3 of this REOI document). |
5 |
The Respondent must provide sufficient information about their financial strength and
stability to establish that they have the financial resources to complete the project.
Therefore the Respondent must provide:
a) Audited financial statements for the last two (2) fiscal years, if they are an existing
business, or projected financial statements and appraisals for start-up businesses,
indicating substantial financial assurance for the services and facilities subject to the
EOI. (If the Respondent is a private organization, audited financial statements or
equivalent business financial performance documentation may be submitted and
Toronto will keep this information in confidence, subject to any requirements of law).
b) A letter from a bank or surety stating that a letter of credit or bid bond in the
amount of $75,000 can be provided if the Respondent is invited to submit a detailed
proposal.
d) A letter from an insurance company identifying that the Respondent can obtain
liability insurance to a minimum of $5,000,000. This insurance must be with a
recognized company currently incorporated within the Province of Ontario. |
6 |
Respondent must provide details of any and all existing business partnership(s) or joint
venture relationships, including the Respondent's (and each member of the
partnership(s)/joint venture(s)) equity position and decision-making authority within
the partnership(s) that relate to the Respondent's bid to Toronto.
Note, "Partnership or Joint Venture", for purposes of this criteria, does not pertain to
potential Toronto partnership offers, but rather, pertains to the Respondent's business
structure, as exists or is proposed to exist, exclusive of any Toronto partnership role.
Notarized copies of Certificates of Incorporation of all proposed contracting parties of
the joint venture or consortium members must be provided. |
The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following communication (March
24, 1999) from the City Clerk:
The Works and Utilities Committee on March 24, 1999, had before it a report (March 15,
1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the Solid Waste
Management Marketplace Engagement Process Request for Expressions of Interest.
Mr. Lawson Oates, Manager, Strategic Planning, Solid Waste Management Services, Works
and Emergency Services, gave a presentation to the Committee with respect to Toronto's
Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process, and submitted a copy of his
presentation.
Mr. Robert Mansell, Tory Tory DesLauriers and Binnington, was present at the meeting of the
Committee and responded to questions from the Members.
The following persons appeared before the Committee in connection with the Solid Waste
Management Marketplace Engagement Process:
-Mr. R.A. McCaig, President, Green Lane Environmental Group Ltd., and submitted
material with respect thereto;
-Ms. Karen Buck, and submitted material with respect thereto;
-Mr. Bob Webb, Republic Services, Inc., and submitted material with respect thereto;
-Mr. Gregory M. Vogt, Eastern Power;
-Ms. Gina Gignac and Mr. Karl Bartlett, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, and
submitted material with respect thereto;
-Mr. Scott Wolfe, General Manager, Miller Waste Systems, and Mr. Gordon E. McGuinty,
President, Notre Development, representing Rail Cycle North; and
-Mr. George Paturalski, Vice-President - Market Development, Browning Ferris Industries.
The Works and Utilities Committee:
(1)deferred consideration of the aforementioned report, if possible to a special meeting of
the Committee to be convened at the call of the Chair prior to the next meeting of Council
scheduled to be held on April 13, 1999, to resolve outstanding issues;
(2)adopted the following recommendations and tabled such recommendations until the
report is again considered by the Committee:
(i)that all terminology be changed by adding the word "resource" after the words "solid
waste" wherever they appear in the City's waste resource management process; and further,
that the title to be used to describe the entire process be: "Integrated Solid Waste Resource
Management Process";
(ii)that the overall objective of the process adopt the following mission statement:
"The City of Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process be designed to
be flexible enough to incorporate new, environmentally sustainable technologies that will
move the City towards its ultimate goal of 'Zero Waste', that is, a strategy based on
maximizing diversion"; and
(iii)that in order to enhance the potential for diversion from disposal, the maximum limits
on the size of proposals in the "proven diversion capacity" (currently limited to 250,000
tonnes/year) and the "new and emerging technologies" (currently limited to 100,000
tonnes/year) be increased; and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be
requested to submit a further report to the Committee with options for alternative limits or no
limits, with the corresponding wording for amendments which would give effect to these
options;
(3)requested that City Councillors attending the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Annual Conference who are Members of the Works and Utilities Committee (and others if
possible) report back to the Committee on their investigations of the City of Halifax program
which is achieving high levels of diversion through separate collection of compostable waste
resources; that City staff investigate this system with Halifax staff and prepare a full report for
special presentation to the Works and Utilities Committee meeting on Wednesday, June 16,
1999, and that a team of appropriate Halifax officials (including an elected official) be invited
to participate, as guests of the City, at such meeting to describe their experiences; and that
funds for the delegation's expenses be provided from the project budget;
(4)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to revise the Request for
Proposals to ensure that there is an opportunity for the private sector to provide the City with
Expressions of Interest based on fluctuating tonnage or number of years and openings at
which point the City can reduce its minimum tonnage;
(5)requested that when this matter is again considered by the Works and Utilities
Committee, the process and the staff process that is involved be tabled as part of these
recommendations;
(6)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the
Committee on the following proposals and requests for information including any
recommendations which flow therefrom:
(a)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services develop an evaluation system
for the Request for Expressions of Interest to include a complete list of criteria and
recommended weighting of the criteria in the evaluation process for approval by the Works
and Utilities Committee and City Council;
(b)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services include, in the evaluation
process, criteria which would address the following:
(i)local economic impacts and local economic development potentials; and
(ii)greenhouse gas reduction potential and performance;
(c)that staff draft Requests for Proposals in as broad terms as possible to permit flexibility,
innovation and creativity of responses;
(d)in order to obtain the best disposal prices possible for the City by committing sufficient
volumes, that the RFP process allow all respondents to make their longest term commitments;
and
(e)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report on the following:
(i)harmonizing and/or clarifying the definitions of "proven waste resource diversion",
"proven waste resource disposal" and "new, emerging and innovative technologies" as
proposed in the Mandatory Qualification Criteria for these categories;
(ii)the possibilities of "performance based criteria" rather than or in combination with
"prescriptive criteria" throughout this process; and
(iii)provisions which could ensure that all greenhouse gas emission reductions, including
downstream reductions, would remain in the ownership of the City; and
(7)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the
Committee at the time of the Request for Proposals on the possibilities for provision of
flexibility in the City's collection strategies which would allow optimization of diversion
within proposals.
--------
Mr. Lawson Oates, Manager Strategic Planning, Solid Waste Management Services, Works
and Emergency Services gave a presentation to the Works and Utilitites Committee in
connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted a copy of his presentation.
Mr. Michael Pratt, Proctor & Redfern Limited, was also present at the meeting of the Works
and Utilities Committee to respond to questions from the Members.
Mr. Richard Gilbert appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with
the foregoing matter.
(A copy of the original Request for Expressions of Interest document referred to in the report
dated March 15, 1999, and forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the
Works and Utilities Committee meeting of March 24, 1999, is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.)
|