1 Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Request for Expressions of Interest

2 Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Prohibition Against Lobbying

3 Works Best Practices Work Group - Status Report

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated April 13, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) City Council set a minimum of 100,000 tonnes per annum disposal capacity for the proposed Request for Expressions of Interest for new disposal capacity; and

(2) the project schedule contained in the April 9, 1999 report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be approved with the identified February 2000 decision point for Council's approval of top-qualified respondents.' ")

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:

"… 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, November 23, 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 80 percent 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

Project Schedule (As Approved by Council on October 2, 1998)

"Target Date for Completion" : Total of 24 months

"Potential Completion Date" : Total of 29 months

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)

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

Draft RFP Evaluation Criteria

Solid Waste Resource Tonnage Charts

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

2.1 Overview of TIRM

2.2 Greater Toronto Area (GTA) Shared Solution Potential

2.3 Description of Response Categories

2.3.1 Category 1 - Proven Waste Diversion Capacity

2.3.2 Category 2 - Proven Waste Disposal Capacity

2.3.3 Category 3 - New, Emerging and Innovative Technologies

2.4 Waste Transport

2.5 Schedule/Duration of Contract

2.6 Public/Private Partnership Potential

2.7 Preferred Customer Status

3.0 SOLID WASTE RESOURCES REQUIRING MANAGEMENT

3.1 Background

3.2 Quantities Requiring Disposal

3.3 Other Wastes

3.4 Contracting for IC&I Waste Separately from Residential Waste

3.5 Waste Composition

3.6 Request for Information Regarding Quantity Requirements and Contract Terms

4.0 EOI RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Identification of Response Category

4.2 Overview of Two-Envelope System, Applicable to Category 2 Responses

4.3 Contents and Format of Envelope One

4.3.1 REOI Mandatory Criteria

4.3.2 General Description of Proposed Approach

4.3.3 Description of Experience and Capabilities

4.3.4 Format of Envelope One Submission

4.4 Contents and Format of Envelope Two

4.4.1 Forms 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3

4.4.2 Proposed Project Specifics

4.4.3 General Description of Participation Offers

4.4.4 Format of Envelope Two Submission

4.5 No Price Information to be Submitted in EOI

5.0 EVALUATION OF EOI RESPONSES

5.1 Consideration of Envelope One

5.2 Consideration of Envelope Two for Qualified Respondents

5.3 Evaluation Schedule

6.0 REOI RULES AND PROCEDURES

6.1 Authorized Contact Person (ACP)

6.2 Communications

6.3 Acquisition of REOI

6.4 Briefing Session

6.5 EOI Submission Location and Deadline

6.6 Marking of EOI Submission

6.7 Declarations

6.7.1 Letter of Transmittal

6.7.2 Joint Ventures and Consortium

6.7.3 Notarized Certificate of Incorporation

6.7.4 Evidence of Insurability

6.8 Withdrawal or Qualification of EOI

6.9 Omissions, Discrepancies and Interpretations

6.10 Deficiencies in Proposals

6.11 Treatment of Confidential Information

6.12 Disclaimers

6.13 Return of "Envelope Two" to Respondents Not Qualifying

6.14 Security Deposits

7.0 NEXT STEPS PERTAINING TO CATEGORY 2 - PROVEN WASTE DISPOSAL

7.1 Public Notification - Qualifying Respondents

7.2 Stage Three - Request for Proposal (RFP)

7.2.1 Status of RFP Evaluation Criteria

7.3 Stage Four - Due Diligence and Contract Negotiations

7.4 Future 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 percent 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:

Residential 1,004,000

Agencies, Boards,

Commissions and Departments 202,000

Industrial, Commercial

and Institutional 616,000

York Region 174,000

Durham Region 126,000

Total 2,122,000

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.

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.

3.3 Other 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).

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-1 Mandatory Qualification Criteria for Proven Waste Diversion Capacity (Category 1)
• •Table C-2 Mandatory Qualification Criteria for Proven Waste Disposal Capacity (Category 2)
• •Table C-3 Mandatory 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)

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.

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:

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 be completed. 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 I Column 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.3 Criterion 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

• •Evidence of Insurability

B.7 Criterion 7 - Existing Business Partnerships/Joint Ventures

B.8 Criterion 8 - References

PART C: GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED APPROACH

C.1 Name of Technologies

C.2 General 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.1 List of Proposed Facilities and Systems

E.2 Description of Sites/Property Locations

E.3 Status of Property Ownership

E.4 Facility Layout and Design Concepts

E.5 Environmental and Land Use Approvals

E.6 Approvals Work Plan

E.7 Design/Construction Work Plan

E.8 Mitigative Measures

E.9 Facilities and Plans for Contingencies

E.10 List of Documentation

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

TABLE C-1

Mandatory Qualification Criteria for

Proven Diversion Capacity

(Category 1)

TABLE C-2

Mandatory Qualification Criteria for

Proven Disposal Capacity

(Category 2)

TABLE C-3

Mandatory Qualification Criteria for

New, Emerging and Innovative Technologies

(Category 3)

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 Utilities 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.)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to two requests made at the April 12, 1999 special meeting of Works and Utilities Committee for reports from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services regarding:

(i) setting a minimum of 250,000 tonnes per annum disposal capacity for the proposed Request for Expressions of Interest for new disposal capacity; and

(ii) amending the project schedule to provide a decision point for Council in December 1999 regarding the approval of top qualified respondents, in place of the recommended date of February 2000.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct financial considerations arising from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council set a minimum of 100,000 tonnes per annum disposal capacity for the proposed Request for Expressions of Interest for new disposal capacity; and

(2) the project schedule contained in the April 9, 1999 report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be approved with the identified February 2000 decision point for Council's approval of top-qualified respondents.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On April 12, 1999, the Works and Utilities Committee held a special meeting to consider two supplementary reports regarding: Report No. 1 a). "City of Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Request for Expressions of Interest" (initial report dated March 15, 1999); and Report No. 2 a). "City of Toronto's Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process - Prohibition Against Lobbying" (initial report dated March 15, 1999).

At the close of the Committee's consideration of these two reports a request was made to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report out to Council on April 13, 1999, regarding setting a minimum response rate, from marketplace respondents to the City's Request for Expressions of Interest, of 250,000 tonnes per annum for disposal capacity, and amending the project schedule to facilitate a December 1999 decision point by Council regarding the approval of top-qualified respondents.

The Commissioner's response to these two requests has been combined through this report. The rationale for the recommendations contained in this report are provided below in the next section.

Discussion and Justification:

We recommend that respondents to the City's REOI for disposal capacity (which also includes "proven diversion" and "new and emerging technologies"), be able to submit proposals that have as a minimum 100,000 tonnes per annum of disposal capacity. The reasons for this recommendation are as follows:

- the Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA) has recommended to the City that competitive Ontario-based options for disposal exist at 100,000 tonnes per annum;

- several Ontario-based public and private sector potential respondents have indicated they can provide disposal capacity to the City at the 100,000 tonne per annum amount. This list includes two public sector potential respondents: Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority; and the City of London. The potential private sector respondents include the Green Lane Landfill and the Walker Brothers' Landfill, and potentially other suppliers;

- Essex-Windsor has contacted us to reiterate that they are in a position to submit a competitive proposal at the 100,000 tonne per annum minimum quantity. They are not in a position to offer disposal services at a higher figure because under their Certificate of Approval they are limited to a maximum intake at their landfill of 320,000 tonnes per annum, of which 220,000 per annum is currently accounted for;

- by setting the minimum disposal capacity response to 250,000 per annum we would most likely limit the Ontario-based responses to one proposal, that being the Rail Cycle North's former Adams Mine Site. This proposal would then be in competition with U.S.-based proposals, which was the same set of conditions experienced by the former Metro Toronto in its last marketplace request for proposals process that led to the contract with Browning-Ferris Industries for disposal capacity at that firm's Arbor Hills Landfill in the State of Michigan; and

- 100,000 tonnes per annum of disposal capacity represents a substantive quantity, equal to approximately one-seventh of our current residential disposal needs.

We therefore recommend that a 100,000 tonne per annum minimum disposal capacity amount be set in order to broaden the opportunity for an Ontario-based solution and facilitate a greater range of marketplace responses including both public and private options.

In regards to adjustments to the schedule, we have reviewed the amended schedule of April 8, 1999, as contained in the Commissioner's report of April 9, 1999, and recommend maintaining the February 2000 target date for Council's decision point for approval of top-qualified respondents, which is a month earlier than the target date contained in our original schedule approved by Council on October 2, 1998.

In order to have a report before Council in December 1999 we would have to submit a report in early November 1999 in order for Works and Utilities Committee to consider the Commissioner's recommendations, prior to Council's consideration in December 1999. This schedule does not provide appropriate time for the many tasks that have to be undertaken, including:

- analysis of REOI responses for "proven diversion", "disposal capacity", and "new and emerging technologies";

- preparation of an RFP for "proven diversion" and "new and emerging technologies", including related public consultation regarding evaluation methodology, and proceeding with related project components as contained in the April 8, 1999 schedule;

- three recommended special meetings of Works and Utilities Committee to hear deputations by respondents at the REOI and RFP stages, and the public following the public notification of the proposals qualifying to submit an RFP;

- public review and input regarding the RFP evaluation criteria following the public notification of the proposals qualified to submit an RFP;

- integration into the planning process of Greater Toronto Area Regional participants, including input on the RFP evaluation criteria and submission of refined disposal capacity requirements prior to the issuance of the RFP; and

- Committee and Council consideration of policy matters, such as the future service level for solid waste resources from the Institutional, Commercial and Industrial ("IC&I") sectors.

Conclusions:

On the basis of the reasons cited in this report, we recommend maintaining a 100,000 tonne per annum minimum disposal capacity level for respondents, and maintaining the recommended project schedule with a February 2000 decision point for Council regarding approval of the top-qualified respondents for supply of disposal capacity.

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)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on May 11, 1999.)

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends recommends that that part of Section 6.1 of the Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) in the Integrated Solid Waste Resource Management Process (formerly named the Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process) pertaining to the "anti-lobbying" clause be deleted from the REOI.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having directed that the City Solicitor and the Chief Administrative Officer, in conjunction with other appropriate staff, be requested to develop a stringent lobbyist registration by-law, and submit a report thereon to the Corporate Services Committee as soon as possible.

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 direction from Toronto City Council on the inclusion, in the Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process ("SWM-MEP") two-stage proposal call for solid waste disposal, diversion, and new and emerging technology options, of an "anti-lobbying" requirement. The two-stage proposal call entails a Request for Expressions of Interest (the "REOI") and a Request for Proposals (the "RFP").

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct financial considerations arising from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Request for Expressions of Interest in the Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process for solid waste disposal, diversion, and new and emerging technologies, contain a requirement, as set out in Appendix "A" attached to this report, prohibiting respondents from lobbying Council members and staff;

(2) the prohibition against lobbying be effective from the date of the issuance of the Request for Expressions of Interest until a contract(s) is reached at the conclusion of the subsequent Request for Proposals phase, or the process is discontinued; and

(3) in conjunction with the implementation of the prohibition against lobbying as contained in Appendix "A", Council adopt the following protocol:

(i) should Members of Council wish to receive information from any respondent(s), then the request shall be made through the designated official as defined in Appendix "A"; and

(ii) in the event of any alleged breach of the requirement against lobbying, Council shall be the arbiter of the effect of such a breach.

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.)

Additional 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

- a request for authorization to issue the SWM-MEP Request for Expressions of Interest ("REOI").

This report focuses on the addition of an anti-lobbying clause to the two-stage proposal call.

Discussion and Justification:

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, thereby resulting in a more business-like approach.

During the previous RFP process carried out by the former Metro Toronto (1995-1996) it was found to be beneficial to have a provision in the document prohibiting lobbying and the solicitation of Council Members and staff. "Anti-lobbying" clauses had been adopted for the National Trade Centre proposal call and the Provincial Highway No. 407 project. Recently, the Regional Municipality of Peel engaged an anti-lobbying provision throughout their entire process for the contracting out of the operational components of their regional water supply and wastewater treatment facilities.

We are recommending the inclusion of such a clause in the SWM-MEP process as we anticipate, because of the major contracts involved, that intense lobbying will likely occur. The proposed clause is provided in the attached Appendix "A". We do not recommend that the prohibition against lobbying extend to interactions by proponents in the press regarding their specific proposals.

In addition, we are recommending that proponents be able to make public deputations at any public meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee in order to provide a direct channel of communication to Committee members in a public forum. In addition, we will be recommending, after the submission of proposals in response to the actual Request for Proposals, opportunities for short-listed proponents to address all Members of Council in one or more special informal briefing sessions on the benefits of their proposals.

Conclusions:

We recommend the inclusion of a prohibition against lobbying in the two-stage SWM-MEP effective from the date of the issuance of the REOI until a contract(s) is reached at the subsequent RFP stage or the process is discontinued. 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.

The "anti-lobbying" clause (please see attached Appendix "A") will create a "one-window" approach for all proponents regarding the proposal call process. The clause does not prohibit proponents from making representations to the media. In order to provide a channel of communication with Councillors we are recommending that proponents be able to make deputations to any public meeting of the Works and Utilities Committee. In addition, we will be recommending that one or more special informal briefings for all Members of Council be convened following the identification of a short-list at the RFP stage in order to provide an opportunity for the short-listed proponents to present the benefits of their proposals.

Contact Name:

Lawson Oates, B.A., M.E.S.

Manager, Strategic Planning

Solid Waste Management Services

Works and Emergency Services

Phone: (416) 392-9744l; Fax: (416) 392-4745

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

Appendix "A"

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 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 representation 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.

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following report (April 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide examples of anti-lobbying clauses incorporated into requests for expressions of interest and requests for proposals of other jurisdictions, as requested by the Works and Utilities Committee on March 24, 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no direct financial considerations arising from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this report be received for information; and

(2) the recommendations contained in the March 15, 1999 report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services regarding the establishment of a prohibition against lobbying be adopted.

Reference/Background/History:

Listed on the agenda of the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of March 24, 1999, was a report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services titled "Solid Waste Management Marketplace Engagement Process - Prohibition Against Lobbying" (report dated March 15, 1999, listed as Item No. 4).

During discussion of this report, a request was made to the Commissioner to provide examples of anti-lobbying clauses employed by other jurisdictions.

Discussion and Justification:

Listed below are several examples of public works projects in which anti-lobbying clauses have been employed. Copies of the anti-lobbying clauses of each of these projects are attached at Appendix "A".

- City of New York, Marine Transfer Station and Solid Waste Disposal Request for Proposals;*

- Region of Peel - South Peel Water and Sewer Systems Competitive Operations Contract;

- Region of Halton - Halton Urban Structure Plan (HUSP), Request for Proposals;

- Region of Waterloo - Sewage System Competitive Operations Contract;

- Province of Ontario - Sale Transaction Highway 407; and

- Former Municipality of Metro Toronto, Request for Proposals for the Disposal of Metro's Residual Solid Waste.

* The attached extract from the City of New York Request for Proposals for solid waste transfer and disposal indicates that "no employee of the City of New York" other than the Authorized Contact Person is to be contacted regarding the Request for Proposals. We have confirmed with New York's Authorized Contact Person, Mr. Harry Szarpanski, that "employee" is defined as all staff employees and elected officials.

In recommending adoption of an anti-lobbying clause, our goal is not to close off communication between respondents and Councillors but to facilitate points of public contact through deputations, briefings for all Councillors, and study tours.

In addition, we would like to propose the formation of an RFP Review Committee to engage several Councillors to review with staff the process outcome in the selection of top-qualified respondents, prior to a staff report being issued to Committee and Council. This will be the subject of a further report following the completion of the REOI phase.

Conclusions:

Each of the municipal jurisdictions cited in this report supported the inclusion of an anti-lobbying clause when engaging the marketplace in the provision of public works related services. In the case of the Region of Peel's successful South Peel Water and Sewer Systems Competitive Operations Contract an anti-lobbying clause was put in place for the request for qualifications stage and the request for proposals stage. This is the recommended course of action for the City of Toronto as it proceeds to engage the marketplace for disposal and diversion capacity.

We recommend that this report be received and that the recommendations contained in the Commissioner's report of March 15, 1999, be adopted.

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 communication (April 7, 1999) from Councillor Betty Disero, Chair, Works and Utilities Committee:

Here is the schedule of deputation items, as requested by the Committee, at our last meeting.

REOI (Diversion, Disposal, New and Emerging Technologies)

Works and Utilities Committee Meeting April 12, 1999

Revised REOI Submitted for Approval:

Council Approves REOI: April 13, 14 and 15, 1999

REOI Issued: April 26, 1999

REOI's Received: May 31, 1999

(1) Presentations to Special Meeting of Works and

Utilities Committee by REOI Respondents: Early June 1999

Project Team Reviews Responses: June 1 to June 25, 1999

(2) Staff Report on Qualified Respondents: July 14, 1999 Committee

(*Public Deputations) Meeting

Public Notification of Potential Disposal Sites: Week of July 19, 1999

Consultation on Disposal RFP Criteria: July 19 to August 16, 1999

RFP for Disposal

(3) Present RFP to Committee/Council: September 1999 Committee

(*Public Deputations) Meeting

Council Approves Disposal RFP: September 1999

Issue Disposal RFP: October 1, 1999

Disposal RFP's Received: November 30, 1999

Evaluation of Proposals: November 30, 1999 to

January 30, 2000

(4) Presentations to Special Meeting of Mid-November 1999

Works and Utilities Committee by

RFP Respondents:

(5) Staff Report on Top-Qualified Respondents: February 2000

(*Public Deputations)

Proposed schedule for RFP for Diversion and New and Emerging Technologies will be subsequently submitted by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(A copy of the attachments referred to in the foregoing report dated April 7, 1999, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the special Works and Utilities Committee meeting of April 12, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having directed that the following communication (April 12, 1999) from the City Clerk be submitted to Council for information:

At its meeting held on April 12, 1999, the Works Best Practices Work Group had before it Clause No. 1 embodied in Report No. 2 of the Works and Utilities Committee, headed "Works Best Practices Program and Projected Staffing Levels - Water and Wastewater Services Division", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999.

The Works Best Practices Work Group also had before it a communication (April 12, 1999) from Councillor Layton recommending that Recommendations Nos. (8) and (9) contained in the above-noted Clause be implemented, as follows:

"(8) The Works Best Practices Program Work Group be requested to submit a report to Council for its meeting to be held on April 13, 1999, through the Works and Utilities Committee, on how those employees who wish to be retrained can be facilitated and how this can be achieved before the change of legislation;

(9) All present employees of the Water and Wastewater Services Division, regardless of education levels, be offered appropriate training and be included in any Human Resources Plan."

The Works Best Practices Work Group reports having taken the following action and directed that this matter be forwarded to the Works and Utilities Committee for information and transmittal to City Council on April 13, 1999, as requested:

(1) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to review and offer to those employees who wish to be retrained, the necessary upgrading to allow those employees an opportunity to achieve the math and english Grade 12 educational level which will permit them to pursue and qualify for the Industrial Mechanic Millwright Apprenticeship Program;

(2) decided to discuss in detail at its next meeting the implementation of Recommendation No. (9) noted above, as well as qualifying and defining what constitutes appropriate retraining; and

(3) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report at its next meeting on the number of long term employees who may have some type of barrier that will not permit them to achieve the necessary educational level to qualify for the proposed positions; and the number of long term employees who may have been denied access to the Skills Enhancement Program.

Respectfully submitted,

BETTY DISERO

Chair

Toronto, April 12, 1999

(Report No. 5 of The Works and Utilities Committee, including an addition thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999.)