Prince Edward Viaduct - Don Section
Structure Modification - Contract No. T-71-99
(Midtown - Don River)
The Works Committee recommends:
(A) the adoption of the report dated October 20, 1999, from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, wherein it is
recommended that:
"(1) Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999, for the installation
of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct be cancelled;
(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized
to issue a new Request for Proposals with a maximum budget of
$2.5 million, to solicit new design concepts and full engineering
services for this project, based on a design/build concept, with the
submission being evaluated by a similar Project Steering Committee
comprised of representatives from:
(a) the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;
(b) the Council on Suicide Preventions;
(c) the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto;
(d) Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning;
(e) the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee; and
(f) the Technical Services Division, Works and Emergency
Services Department; and
(3) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the
necessary action to give effect thereto;" and
(B) that the fund-raising process be initiated and that appropriate staff
be authorized to engage a fund-raising consultant, from the project
budget approved by Council, and report back thereon to the
Committee.
The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having
requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:
(1) submit a report to Council for its meeting on February 1, 2000, on
the following suggested cost efficiencies:
(i) two-lane road closure;
(ii) reducing or eliminating the late penalties;
(iii) increasing the length of time for completion; and
(iv) the City undertaking traffic management; and
(2) give consideration to all suggestions made during the meeting of
the Committee.
The Works Committee submits the following communication (November
29, 1999) from the City Clerk:
City Council, at its meeting held on November 23, 24 and 25, 1999, had
before it the attached Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 5 of The
Works Committee, headed "Prince Edward Viaduct - Don Section
Structure Modification, Contract No. T-71-99 (Midtown - Don River)".
Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and
referred back to the Works Committee for further consideration at its
next meeting to be held on December 1, 1999.
(Clause No. 1 of Report No. 5 of The Works Committee
headed "Prince Edward Viaduct - Don Section
Structure Modification, Contract No. T-71-99
(Midtown - Don River)")
(City Council on November 23, 24 and 25, 1999, struck out and
referred this Clause back to the Works Committee for further
consideration at its next meeting to be held on December 1, 1999.)
The Works Committee:
(1) submits the following report (October 20, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services without
recommendation with respect to the cancellation of Contract No.
T-71-99, pending submission of a report by the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services directly to Council for its meeting
commencing on November 23, 1999, on the option with respect to
the $1.3 million "bus shelter" style barrier as a method of going
forward immediately with the safety barrier on the Prince Edward
Viaduct; and
(2) recommends that:
(i) the four payphones be immediately installed on the Viaduct;
(ii) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested
to:
(a) negotiate with the three bidders to reduce the budget
price, if possible;
(b) work with the Project Steering Committee members to
solicit private sector sponsorship;
(c) in conjunction with the City Solicitor and the Chief
Administrative Officer, develop the details of an
agreement with the media for the non-reportage of
suicide attempts on City properties; and
(d) report back to the Works Committee at its next meeting
on the status of the aforementioned negotiations and
fund-raising; and
(iii) the Council Procedural By-law be waived to permit
considering this item in camera:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to advise of the results of the Tender
issued for the installation of a suicide prevention barrier on the Prince
Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct, in accordance with specifications as
required by the Works and Emergency Services Department.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Council has previously approved an expenditure of $2.5 million.
Acceptance of the low bid would require an additional expenditure in
excess of $3.0 million, but no funds are allocated for the additional
expenditure. Other options presented in this report would be within the
original approved amount of $2.5 million. The Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial
impact statement.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999, for the installation of a
safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct be cancelled;
(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to
issue a new Request for Proposals with a maximum budget of $2.5 million,
to solicit new design concepts and full engineering services for this project,
based on a design/build concept, with the submission being evaluated by
a similar Project Steering Committee comprised of representatives from:
(a) the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;
(b) the Council on Suicide Preventions;
(c) the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto;
(d) Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning;
(e) the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee; and
(f) the Technical Services Division, Works and Emergency
Services Department; and
(3) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary
action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference:
The Bid Committee at its meeting held on October 6, 1999, opened the
following tenders for Contract No. T-71-99, for the structure modification
and the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct -
Don Section:
Price Complete
Including all
Tenderer: Charges and Taxes
Bridgecon Construction Ltd. $5,558,405.92
Grascan Construction Ltd. $7,029,900.00
G. Tari Limited $8,325,873.84
The Tender submitted by G. Tari Limited contained minor errors in the
extension of the unit prices. The revised figure is shown above.
Background:
On July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, Council adopted Report No. 8 of The Urban
Environment and Development Committee, Clause No. 2, and authorized
the Works and Emergency Services Department (WES) to solicit
proposals for design concepts and full architectural services for the
installation of safety barriers on the Viaduct with a budget set at $1.5
million. The amount of $1.5 million was included in the terms of
reference informing competitors of the parameters of the project.
On October 1 and 2, 1998, Council adopted Report No. 11 of The Urban
Environment and Development Committee, Clause No. 1, recommending
the preferred design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership be
adopted and that they be retained to prepare the detailed design and
tender documents and to provide project management and site
supervision services.
Subsequent to Council's endorsement of the design, it was apparent
that the design as selected could not be constructed within the original
budgeted amount of $1.5 million.
On May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, Council adopted the recommendation of the
Urban Environment and Development Committee (Report No. 7, Clause
No. 2) which directed the WES to proceed with the design by Dereck
Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership, to prepare the detailed design
and tender documents for the construction and to increase the funding
for the project by $1.0 million to $2.5 million.
Comments:
On October 6, 1999, the Bid Committee opened the tenders, as stated
previously in this report. The low bid price was $5,558,405.92, more
than three times the original budget of $1.5 million and more than
double the revised budget of $2.5 million.
Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership and their cost consultant,
Vermeulens, are of the opinion, as stated in the attached letter
(Attachment No. 1), that the tenders are too high for the value of the
work indicated and reflect the high levels of risk associated with the
project and current market conditions, rather than the underlying cost
and scope of work.
In the attached letter, the consultant outlined a proposed course of
action. City staff are not in agreement with the proposal mainly because
it does not provide the assurances that the project would be completed
within the available budget. Should Council decide to proceed with the
option of a "test panel", any procurement must be in accordance with
the Purchasing Department's procedures.
At present, an amount of $1.5 million is included in the approved WES
1999 Capital Works Programme under Capital Account TR029, Don
Valley Parkway Rehabilitation. The source of the additional funding is
yet to be identified.
There are five possible alternatives for this project:
(1) proceed with the construction of the suicide prevention barrier in the
amount of $5,558,405.92;
(2) retain the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership and
retender the construction utilizing a modified procurement process,
including the erection of a "test" section to refine cost projections, prior
to proceeding with the balance of construction. Expenditures in excess of
$2.5 million would still require further allocation of funds;
(3) as an interim measure, install a chain link fence at a cost of approximately
$800,000.00,until such time as the final barrier is installed;
(4) terminate work on the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles
Partnership and initiate a new design competition, based on the
design/build concept; or
(5) terminate work on the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles
Partnership and construct a basic barrier at a cost of approximately $2.0
million.
Option (3) could be implemented by late winter/early spring of 2000.
The timelines for Options (1), (2), (4) and (5) are all of a similar duration
and would result in scheduled completion in late summer/early fall of
2000.
This matter was discussed with the Project Steering Committee at a
meeting on October 19, 1999. The Committee is strongly in favour of
Option (2) and has reached a consensus as follows:
(1) we do not recommend a second design competition;
(2) we accept the analysis of the tenders provided by Vermeulens Cost
Consultants, that market conditions, overhead/access costs and perceived
risk have inflated the bids;
(3) we recommend immediate installation of a temporary barrier and four
payphones with appropriate Distress Centre signage;
(4) we recommend staff and Revington/Yolles negotiate with the lowest bidder
to reduce the bid;
(5) we recommend a sample bay (approximately 6.4 metres) of the winning
Revington/Yolles barrier be constructed to determine more accurately the
cost and reduce the perceived risk;
(6) the Project Steering Committee supports a "design build" process to
reduce costs and perceived risk of the winning design; and
(7) we recommend the City seek private sector sponsorships to offset
increased costs of construction and complete the Revington/Yolles barrier.
Should the recommendation to proceed with a new Request for
Proposal (RFP) be adopted, WES will proceed immediately to reorganize
the Project Steering Committee to fast-track the process. Such process
will follow closely in line with the previous RFP procedure with a strong
emphasis on the budget amount of $2.5 million. In order to ensure the
budget is not exceeded, the work would be tendered as a design/build
assignment.
As directed by Council in the May 11, 1998 Urban Environment and
Development Committee Report No. 7, Clause No. 2, WES staff have had
several discussions with Bell Canada and Toronto Hydro regarding the
installation of four payphones on the approaches of the bridge. Cost
estimates from Bell and Toronto Hydro to install the two telephone lines
and power supply at the southeast and southwest corners of the bridge
are in the order of $15,000.00. A work order for this work has already
been issued and we expect completion of the work within four to six
weeks. Installation of the telephone lines at the northeast and northwest
corners of the bridge is more problematic and they are currently
assessing the feasibility and cost to install these lines. As the cost of
the installation of these two telephones is expected to be substantially
higher, we will report to the Works Committee again once the
investigation is completed.
On September 8, 1999, a meeting of the telephone sub-committee was
held on the site to discuss and finalize the locations and proposed
signage to complement the telephones. The signage shall include the
telephone numbers of the Distress Centre.
Conclusions:
This report requests authority to cancel Contract No. T-71-99, Tender
Call No. 222-1999, for the installation of a safety fence on the Prince
Edward Viaduct and also to issue a new RFP for a new design concept
for the project.
Contact:
W. (Bill) G. Crowther, P.Eng.
Director, Works Facilities and Structures
Technical Services Division
Tel. (416)392-8256; Fax (416)392-4594
E-mail: william g. crowther@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
The Works Committee also submits the following communication (November 3,
1999) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River:
Today at 2:00 p.m. the Works Committee will be considering the Bloor Viaduct
suicide prevention initiative.
I recognize that there is great concern about the significant increase in costs
for this project. Starting over, or moving to a temporary barrier is not the
answer.
The attached estimate shows that almost $2 million of the cost overrun is from
non-structural costs and connection to the bridge. These costs would apply
to any proposal, and therefore make the $2.4 million estimate originally
proposed impossible to meet under any circumstances.
I suggest that the Committee continue to pursue the existing design, and
defer the matter until the Commissioner can report on what can be done to
reduce the overall cost of the existing proposal (including changes to the
contract tendering process) and what can be done to raise money to offset
the increased costs.
Too many people have died for us to take short cuts on this issue. People
should remember that this issue is not just about the people who commit
suicide, it is also about the people who witness the suicides, and the people
below who are endangered.
My children enrolled in the high school at the west end of the viaduct. They
have seen a lot of deaths. My daughter Maddy saw two deaths in the last
three months. She has seen the mutilated bodies, one of which was found
in the playing field just before gym class. Those memories will stay with her
for a long time.
The local neighbourhood, the architectural community and the mental health
community took great pains to come to agreement on this. It would be a great
shame to dissolve that consensus. I hope the Committee will agree to give
this project a chance by directing staff to make whatever efforts they can to
reduce the cost to the City without abandoning the current design.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
_________
The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had
before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication
(October 29, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council, at its
meeting held on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it Clause No. 9
contained in Report No. 4 of The Works Committee, headed "Prince Edward
Viaduct - Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts"; and directed that the
aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Works
Committee for further consideration at its next meeting to be held on
November 3, 1999.
The Works Committee further reports having also had before it the following
communications:
(i) (June 11, 1999) from Dr. Richard H. Seiden, Oakland, California,
advising that taking positive steps to reduce suicides through
environmental modification is not a comparable "displacement" to other
places; and that the effectiveness of telephone measures is not so
clear, suggesting instead the provision of a general "crisis" line.
(ii) (October 13, 1999) from Dr. Morton M. Silverman, M.D., Associate
Professor of Psychiatry, Editor-in-Chief, Suicide and Life-Threatening
Behaviour, stating that limiting access to available means for suicide is
a major preventive intervention within an overall community suicide
prevention plan; and urging the City to make every effort to proceed
quickly with implementing the Bloor Viaduct suicide prevention project.
(iii) (October 15, 1999) from Dr. David Lester, Professor of Psychology,
Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, in support of the fencing in of
the Prince Edward Viaduct; and advising that there is good research
evidence that restricting access to lethal methods for suicide reduces
their use for suicide; that there are no published research reports that
evaluate the effectiveness of the use of other measures such as
placement of telephones on bridges; and that all privately-owned
structures are fenced in.
(iv) (October 20, 1999) from Staff Inspector W. Fordham, No. 54 Division,
Toronto Police Service, respecting the proposal to install a signed
telephone system on the bridge where high risk or emotionally disturbed
persons would have immediate access to on-line counselling.
(v) (October 21, 1999) from Dr. D.J. Gunnell, Senior Lecturer in
Epidemiology and Public Health Medicine, University of Bristol, outlining
experience with efforts to reduce suicides from the Clifton Suspension
Bridge in Bristol; and reiterating his support for the erection of safety
barriers on the Prince Edward Viaduct.
(vi) (October 21, 1999) from Dr. Robin R. Richards, Head - Division of
Orthopaedics, St. Michael's Hospital, informing the Committee of the
medical costs and public health consequences when a person survives
a jump from the Bloor Viaduct, and urging City Councillors to complete
the suicide barrier without further delay.
(vii) (October 25, 1999) from Dr. Claude Prevost, Regie Regionale de la
Sante et des Services Sociaux, stating that the installation of a safety
fence is the most appropriate prevention measure for the suicide
problem at the Bloor Street Viaduct; and encouraging City Councillors
to examine alternative designs that would meet both suicide prevention
and fiscal requirements.
(viii) (November 1, 1999) from Mr. Michael McCamus, Schizophrenia Society
of Ontario, advising Councillors that the international suicide prevention
community supports erection of a Viaduct barrier; urging Councillors to
adopt the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee's Seven-Point Plan
as a realistic and fiscally responsible way to complete the winning
barrier design; and forwarding documentation which concludes that
bridge patrols do not save lives, that bridge distress phones are not an
adequate substitute for barriers and that the costs of suicide and suicide
attempts far exceed the cost of preventative measures.
(ix) (November 1, 1999) from Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, Professor Emeritus of
Psychiatry and Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, and Centre of
Addiction and Mental Health, reviewing several points with respect to the
issue of suicide barriers on the Prince Edward Viaduct for members of the
Works Committee.
(x) (November 1, 1999) from Dr. Paul S. Links, Arthur Sommer Rotenberg Chair
in Suicide Studies, Professor in Psychiatry, University of Toronto, St.
Michael's/Wellesley Hospital, informing the Committee of the research in
favour of bridge barriers, and of the widespread social and economic costs of
neglecting suicide.
(xi) (November 2, 1999) from Mr. Michael McCamus, Schizophrenia Society
of Ontario, forwarding additional newspaper articles documenting much
of the efforts dedicated to the Bloor Viaduct barrier, and expressing the
futility and waste of recommending a second design competition.
(xii) (November 3, 1999) from Dereck Revington Studio, providing a report
on the background to the award of the design contract/tender call for
the suicide barrier on the Bloor Street Viaduct; responding to questions
with respect to the length of time the project has taken and the costs of
the project; and reviewing the site, general conditions and proposed
alternatives.
(xiii) (November 3, 1999) from Marion Joppe, Chair, Heritage Toronto,
advising that Heritage Toronto continues to support the Steering
Committee process and selection, and that the historic stature of the
Prince Edward Viaduct warrants the best design solution obtainable.
The following persons appeared before the Works Committee in connection
with the foregoing matter:
- Mr. Dereck Revington, Principal, Dereck Revington Studio, and Professor of
Architecture, University of Waterloo;
- Mr. Richard Vermeulen, Vermeulens Cost Consultants;
- Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, FRCP(C), Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry,
University of Toronto; Director of the High Risk Clinic, Clarke Institute;
and Member of the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee;
- Police Superintendent Aidan Maher, 52 Division, Toronto Police
Service;
- Mr. Michael McCamus, SSO Bridge Committee Spokesperson of
Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, and Co-chair of City's Bloor Viaduct
Project Steering Committee;
- Mrs. Mary Doucette, bereaved mother of Ray Doucette, Jr.,
representing the Doucette family;
- Mr. J. A. (Al) Birney, SSO Bridge Committee Chairman, and Past-President of East York Chapter, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario
(SSO), and Co-chair of City's Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee;
- Ms. Ellis Galea Kirkland, Urban Planning and Development Services,
City of Toronto; Past-President of the Ontario Association of Architects;
and Member of the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee; and
- Mr. Vincent Brescia, Labourers Union Local 183.
(A copy of Attachment 1 referred to in the foregoing report has been
forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works
Committee meeting of November 3, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the
office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council on November 23, 24 and 25, 1999, had before it, during
consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (November 19,
1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide further information concerning this
project as requested by the Works Committee at its meeting held on
November 3, 1999
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Council has previously approved an expenditure of $2.5 million. The current
bids for the Dereck Revington/Yolles Partnership barrier design are all well in
excess of the allocated funds. Other options presented in this report would
be within the original approved amount of $2.5 million. The Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial
impact statement.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999 for the installation of
a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct be cancelled;
(2) the October 20, 1999 report to the Works Committee be adopted and
that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be
authorized to issue a new Request for Proposals with a maximum
budget of $2.5 million, to solicit new design concepts and full
engineering services for this project, based on a design/build concept,
with the submission being evaluated by a similar Project Steering
Committee comprised of representatives from:
(a) the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario
(b) the Council on Suicide Preventions
(c) the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto
(d) Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning
(e) the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee; and
(f) the Technical Services Division, Works and Emergency Services
Department;
(3) Council consider the recommendations presented by the Project
Steering Committee and should Council agree to adopt them, staff will
conduct negotiations with the three bidders. On the advise of the
solicitor, transfer of any part of the risk that would normally be assumed
by the contractor will not be part of the negotiations;
(4) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the
necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background:
On July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, Council adopted Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of
The Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC), and
authorized the Works and Emergency Services Department (WES) to solicit
proposals for design concepts and full architectural services for the
installation of safety barriers on the Viaduct with a budget set at $1.5 million.
The amount of $1.5 million was included in the terms of reference informing
competitors of the parameters of the project.
On October 1 and 2, 1998, Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11
of Urban Environment Development Committee, recommending the preferred
design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership be adopted and that
they be retained to prepare the detailed design and tender documents and to
provide project management and site supervision services.
Subsequent to Council's endorsement of the design, it was apparent that the
design as selected, could not be constructed within the original budgeted
amount of $1.5 million.
On May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, Council adopted the recommendation of the
UEDC (Report No. 7, Clause No. 2) which directed the WES to proceed with
the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership, to prepare the
detailed design and tender documents for the construction and to increase the
funding for the project by $1.0 million to $2.5 million.
On October 6, 1999, the Bid Committee opened the tenders for Contract No.
T-71-99, for the structure modification and the installation of a safety fence on
the Prince Edward Viaduct - Don Section. The low bid price was
$5,558,405.92, more than three times the original budget of $1.5 million and
more than double the revised budget of $2.5 million.
At its meeting on November 3, 1999, the Works Committee referred the report
dated October 20, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services to Council without recommendation and requested further
information regarding the "bus-shelter" style barrier and requested staff to
enter into negotiations with the three bidders to reduce the bid prices, if
possible and to meet with the Project Steering Committee to solicit private
sector sponsorship.
Comments:
At its meeting on November 3, 1999, the Works Committee expressed interest
in the "bus shelter" style barrier presented in the initial report prepared by
Morrison Hershfield in April 1998. That report reviewed different alternatives
and costs for several types of barriers for this bridge. The "bus shelter" style
of barrier was investigated along with a chain link fence, safety nets and an
aluminum fence. Proposals for all four types of barriers were submitted
during the design competition stage, but all were rejected by the Selection
Committee early in the process in favour of the Dereck Revington/Yolles
Partnership design.
Prior to the Works Committee meeting on November 3, 1999, staff confirmed
the estimated cost of the "bus-shelter" style barrier to be approximately $1.3
million, but this design has not been reviewed in detail by Heritage Toronto or
the Project Steering Committee.
Staff is recommending that a new design competition based on a design/build
concept be initiated for the following reasons:
(1) A new design/build competition would ensure that the project cost of
$2.5 million would not be exceeded.
(2) Heritage Toronto and the Steering Committee would have an
opportunity to comment on the selected design.
(3) A new design/build competition would provide an opportunity to obtain
the best design within the specified budget and would not result in any
additional delays over the option of constructing the "bus shelter" style
barrier.
A design/build contract would contractually bind the designer/contractor to
design and build the barrier within the specified amount of the contract. The
designer/contractor would assume all risk associated with cost overruns,
unless the City specifically requested changes.
The "bus-shelter" style barrier has not been submitted to Heritage Toronto or
the Project Steering Committee for their review and comments. A new design
competition would allow them to comment on this option and any other
submissions. Both Heritage Toronto and the Project Steering Committee
would be involved in the selection of a new barrier design. The "bus-shelter"
style barrier may emerge as the preferred option in a new design competition,
but a new competition would provide the opportunity to review and select the
best design available within the budget specified. Based on past experience,
staff would prefer a barrier option as opposed to an enclosed option for ease
of maintenance.
A new design/build competition would be fast-tracked to initiate a Request for
Proposal by mid January 2000, with proposals being submitted to the City by
the end of February 2000. Review of the proposals and final selection by the
Project Selection Committee would be completed by mid March followed by
award of the contract in mid to late April. The contract would commence
immediately after award.
If Council approved the construction of a "bus-shelter" style barrier,
installation would proceed in approximately the same timeframe as a new
design, due to no construction taking place during the winter months.
In preparing to negotiate with the low bidders, Dereck Revington Studio (DRS) was
asked if the barrier design could be modified in any way to lower the cost of the
project. DRS responded verbally that there would be very little that could be changed
in the design, since they have already gone through a cost reduction analysis during
the final design stage. To date, we are waiting for written confirmation of their
comments.
The City Solicitor and the Purchasing Department were contacted to discuss
negotiating with the low bidder. Staff were advised that in case we opened
negotiations, we would have to negotiate with all three bidders and that they must be
provided with the same information regarding any changes to the contract
requirements or design. The City Solicitor also stated that the City is not prepared
to assume additional risk for the work, as proposed by DRS. Our current policy of
the contractor assuming all risk of performing the work under a contract must be
maintained.
A meeting of the Project Steering Committee was held on November 17,
1999, to discuss possible fundraising initiatives. The outcome of the meeting
was a consensus position by the committee which is included in Attachment
No. 1.
If the recommendation to proceed with a new Request for Proposal (RFP) is
adopted, WES will proceed immediately to activate the Project Steering
Committee to fast-track the process. Such process will follow closely in line
with the previous RFP procedure with a strong emphasis on the budget
amount of $2.5 million. In order to ensure the budget is not exceeded, the
work would be tendered as a design/build assignment.
Should Council adopt the recommendations presented by the Project Steering
Committee, staff will conduct negotiations with the 3 bidders. It should also
be noted that the progress of the project would be entirely dependent on
successful fundraising by the members of the Project Steering Committee and
may jeopardize completion of the barrier in the year 2000.
As directed by Council in the May 11, 1998, UEDC, Report No. 7, Clause No.
2, WES staff have authorized Bell Canada and Toronto Hydro to proceed
with the installation of two payphones located on the south side on the
approaches of the bridge. Work orders for this work have been issued to Bell
and Toronto Hydro and they are scheduled to complete the installation by
mid-December. Installation of the telephone lines at the northeast and
northwest corners of the bridge is more problematic and Bell is currently
assessing the feasibility and cost to install these lines.
As the cost of the installation of these two telephones is expected to be
substantially higher, we will report to the Works Committee again once the
investigation is completed.
Conclusion:
This report requests authority to cancel Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No.
222-1999, for the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct
and also to issue a new RFP for a new design/build concept for the project.
Contact:
W. (Bill) G. Crowther, P.Eng.
Director, Works Facilities and Structures
Technical Services Division
Tel. (416)392-8256; Fax (416)392-4594
E-mail: william_g._crowther@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
(A copy of Appendix 1, a communication dated November 19, 1999, from the
Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file
in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause,
a communication (November 8, 1999) from Mr. Richard Vermeulen,
Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, explaining why the tender bids for the
Prince Edward (Bloor) Viaduct suicide prevention barrier have exceeded the
budget; and outlining the recommendations from the City's Bloor Viaduct
Project Steering Committee (PSC) to lower the bids and to permit completion
of the approved barrier design.)
The Works Committee also submits the following report (December 16,
1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide further information concerning this
project as requested by the Works Committee at its meeting held on
November 3, 1999.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Council has previously approved an expenditure of $2.5 million. The low bid
for the Dereck Revington/Yolles Partnership barrier design exceeds the
budgeted amount by over $3 million. Other options presented in this report
would be within the original approved amount of $2.5 million. The Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the
financial impact statement.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the recommendations contained in the report to the
Works Committee dated October 20, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works
and Emergency Services be adopted, namely that:
(1) Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999, for the installation of
a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct be cancelled;
(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to
issue a new Request for Proposals with a maximum budget of $2.5
million, to solicit new design concepts and full engineering services for
this project, based on a design/build concept, with the submission being
evaluated by a similar Project Steering Committee comprised of
representatives from:
(a) the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;
(b) the Council on Suicide Preventions;
(c) the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto;
(d) Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning;
(e) the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee; and
(f) the Technical Services Division, Works and Emergency Services
Department; and
(3) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the
necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background:
On July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, Council adopted Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of
The Urban Environment and Development Committee, and authorized the
Works and Emergency Services Department (WES) to solicit proposals for
design concepts and full architectural services for the installation of safety
barriers on the Viaduct with a budget set at $1.5 million. The amount of $1.5
million was included in the terms of reference informing competitors of the
parameters of the project.
On October 1 and 2, 1998, Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11
of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, recommending the
preferred design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership be adopted
and that they be retained to prepare the detailed design and tender
documents and to provide project management and site supervision services.
Subsequent to Council's endorsement of the design, it was apparent that the
design as selected, could not be constructed within the original budgeted
amount of $1.5 million.
On May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, Council adopted the recommendation of the
Urban Environment and Development Committee (Report No. 7, Clause No.
2) which directed WES to proceed with the design by Dereck Revington
Studios/Yolles Partnership, to prepare the detailed design and tender
documents for the construction and to increase the funding for the project by
$1.0 million to $2.5 million.
On October 6, 1999, the Bid Committee opened the tenders for Contract No.
T-71-99, for the structure modification and the installation of a safety fence on
the Prince Edward Viaduct - Don Section. The low bid price was
$5,558,405.92, more than three times the original budget of $1.5 million and
more than double the revised budget of $2.5 million.
At its meeting on November 3, 1999, the Works Committee referred the report
dated October 20, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services to the November 23, 1999 Council meeting without recommendation
and requested staff to enter into negotiations with the three bidders to reduce
the bid prices, if possible, and to meet with the Project Steering Committee
to solicit private sector sponsorship.
On November 23, 24 and 25, 1999, Council struck out and referred this item
back to the December 1, 1999 Works Committee for further consideration.
On December 1, 1999, the Works Committee deferred consideration of this
matter until its next meeting scheduled to be held on January 12, 2000.
Comments:
At its meeting on November 3, 1999, the Works Committee requested that
staff negotiate with the three bidders to reduce the budget price, if possible
and that staff work with the project Steering Committee members to solicit
private sector sponsorship.
In preparing to negotiate with the low bidders, Dereck Revington Studio (DRS)
was asked if the barrier design could be modified in any way to lower the cost
of the project. DRS responded verbally that there would be very little that
could be changed in the design, since they have already gone through a cost
reduction analysis during the final design stage. To date, we have not
received written confirmation of any suggested design modifications from
DRS.
Prior to approaching the three bidders, the City Solicitor and the Purchasing
and Materials Management Division were contacted to discuss negotiating
with the low bidder. Staff was advised we would have to approach all three
bidders and that they must be provided with the same information regarding
any changes to the contract requirements or design. The City Solicitor has
also advised that the discussions should not be construed as negotiations but
rather as an approach by the City to the bidders to obtain input to determine
if the project could be revised to allow for limited retendering to the three
bidders. The City Solicitor has advised that negotiations with the bidders to
determine a final contract is foreign to a tender situation. Any significant
changes to the project, including the City's original standard conditions,
without retendering, puts the City at risk.
On November 22, 1999, as requested by City staff, DRS submitted a list of
questions to be presented to the bidders in an attempt to solicit ideas that
might potentially reduce the cost of the project. The questions were reviewed
and modified by Legal Services, Purchasing and Materials Management
Division and the WES Department. On December 7, the Purchasing and
Materials Management Division faxed the list of questions to the three bidders
requesting their responses by December 14, 1999. Responses were received
by all three bidders and are included in the Attachments Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
In summary, the bidders stated that their bids reflect the true value of the work
required and that there is minimal opportunity for cost reduction without a
significant changes to the design or contract requirements.
Subsequent to the Project Steering Committee meeting of November 17,
1999, we received a letter from Mr. M. McCamus on behalf of the Steering
Committee members reiterating their support for the DRS/Yolles Partnership
design and expressing a willingness to participate in any fundraising initiative
to assist in funding the project. The Project Steering Committee's comments
are included in Attachment No. 4.
Following the meeting of the Project Steering Committee held on November
17, 1999, to discuss possible fundraising initiatives, staff has made inquiries
about the fundraising options.
WES staff have contacted staff of the Economic Development, Culture and
Tourism Department who have had past experience in fundraising activities
as well as a fundraising consultant to discuss this project. Their
recommendation is to perform a feasibility study prior to any major fundraising
initiative in order determine the prospects of achieving the fundraising goals.
In order to provide a quotation to perform a feasibility study, the fundraising
consultant would need to know the amount of funds required, the timeframe
of the fundraising campaign or when the funds are required and the type of
corporate or private sponsorship in the form of advertising or marketing that
the City is willing to permit on this project.
As directed by Council in the May 11, 1998 Urban Environment and
Development Committee Report No. 7, Clause No. 2, WES staff have
authorized Bell Canada and Toronto Hydro to proceed with the installation of
two payphones located on the south side on the approaches of the bridge.
Work orders for this work have been issued to Bell and Toronto Hydro and
they are scheduled to complete the installation by mid to end of December
1999. Installation of the telephone lines at the northeast and northwest
corners of the bridge is more problematic and Bell is currently assessing the
feasibility and cost to install these lines. As the cost of the installation of
these two telephones is expected to be substantially higher, we will report to
the Works Committee again once the investigation is completed.
Conclusions:
Based on the response received from the three tenderers, this report requests
authority to cancel Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999, for the
installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct and also to issue
a new RFP for a new design/build concept for the project.
Contact:
W. (Bill) G. Crowther, P. Eng.
Director, Works Facilities and Structures
Technical Services Division
Tel. (416) 392-8256; Fax (416) 392-4594
E-mail: WCrowth@toronto.ca
_________
The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during
consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications:
(i) (January 1, 2000) from Mr. Michael McCamus, Bridge Committee Spokesperson,
Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, forwarding material with respect to Canada's first medical
"cost-of-suicide" study; and
(ii) (January 6, 2000) from Mr. J.A. (Al) Birney, Bridge Committee Chairman and Past President
of East York Chapter, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, forwarding newspaper articles
demonstrating concern for the design excellence embodied in the Prince Edward Viaduct and
the "Luminous Veil" suicide barrier.
The following persons appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing
matter:
- Mr. Dereck Revington, Principal, Dereck Revington Studio, Associate Professor of
Architecture, University of Waterloo;
- Mr. J.A. (Al) Birney, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario Bridge Committee Chairman; Past
President of East York Chapter, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario; and Co-Chair of the
City's Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee;
- Mr. Marco Polo, Editor, Canadian Architect magazine and Member of the Royal
Architectural Institute of Canada (MRAIC);
- Mr. Michael McCamus, Bridge Committee Spokesperson of the Schizophrenia Society of
Ontario, and Co-Chair of the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee; and
- Ms. Ellis Galea Kirkland, MRAIC, Urban Planning and Development Services, City of
Toronto; Past President of the Ontario Association of Architects; and Member of the Bloor
Viaduct Project Steering Committee.
(A copy of each of the attachments referred to in the foregoing report dated December 16, 1999, has
been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works Committee meeting of
January 12, 2000, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)