January 31, 2003

• In July 2000, Toronto City Council directed the Commissioner of Corporate Services to prepare and issue an international Request for Expressions of Interest from interested developers with the relevant skills and experience to undertake a project to restore, revitalize and operate Union Station. The Commissioner was assisted in this regard by the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the City Solicitor in consultation with GO Transit, VIA Rail, the Toronto Transit Commission and federal government officials.

• The firm of Marshall Macklin Monaghan was retained to manage the REI and subsequent RFP process. Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg have provided legal advice and assistance throughout.

• The REI was issued in January 2001. The City of Toronto received eight responses, two of which did not constitute formal submissions. At its meeting of March 6, 2001, Council pre-qualified three firms to participate in a subsequent RFP:
  • Landau & Heyman (now known as LP Heritage + Union Station Consortium)
  • Union Pearson Group Inc.
  • Union Place Development Corporation

• In June 2001, Council authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the three pre-qualified firms that identified three objectives:
  • Enhance the transportation attributes of the Station
  • Revitalize the Station as a destination
  • Ensure that capital improvements, including heritage preservation and restoration investments are undertaken by the developer

• The RFP was released on August 10, 2001 and identified a submission deadline of November 9, 2001, which was extended to December 14, 2001. Two proposals were received from LP Heritage + Union Station Consortium and Union Pearson Group Inc. Union Place Development Corporation did not submit a proposal.

• A strict security protocol was implemented to ensure the confidentiality of the two proposals.

• Six technical review teams were constituted.

• A Selection Committee was established to evaluate the proposals and recommend a preferred proponent. It was comprised of:
  • Joan Anderton, Commissioner, Corporate Services and Chair of Selection Committee
  • Paula Dill, Commissioner, Urban Development Services
  • Joseph Pennachetti, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
  • Helena Borges, Executive Director, Rail Policy, Transport Canada
  • Rob Bergevin, Director - Co-ordination and Policy Advice - Ontario, Transport Canada
  • Michael McClelland, Heritage Consultant, E.R.A. Architects Inc.

• To conduct their evaluation of the two proposals, the Selection Committee:
  • reviewed the proposals with the assistance of six technical review teams
  • received written clarifications from the proponents
  • relied on evaluation criteria identified in the Request for Expressions of Interest (REI) and Request for Proposals (RFP)
  • heard presentations from both proponents

• In February 2002, the two respondents made presentations to the technical review teams and selection committee. They also engaged in a series of written communications with the teams and selection committee to clarify all aspects of the proposals. Both proposals were subjected to a fair and rigorous review process.

• Between January and April 2002, the two proposals were carefully reviewed by six technical review teams focusing on those elements identified for evaluation in the RFP:
  • Development Concept:
    • Approach to transportation objectives
    • Planning and design merits
    • Overall public benefits
  • Heritage:
    • Approach to heritage issues
    • Experience and expertise of the heritage team
  • Project Management:
    • Project management/construction co-ordination
    • Approach to quality assurance and quality control
    • Organization and experience of the team
  • Business Plan:
    • Financial offer
    • Investment program
    • Financial plan/covenant strength
    • Operations and Management:
    • Commercial facilities plan
    • Leasing plan
    • Overall quality and cohesiveness:
    • Responsiveness to the RFP
    • Integration and co-ordination of components
  • Additional Density Proposal:
    • Financial benefits
    • Other benefits

• In July 2002, City staff presented the proposals received to restore, revitalize and operate Union Station to Toronto City Council.

• The procedural requirements of the Request for Proposals and methodology of the evaluation process were fully presented to City Council during a lengthy in-camera portion of that meeting when Councillors reviewed the scoring in detail, questioned staff, received legal advice and provided confidential instructions to the negotiating team. Council voted 34 - 2 that Union Pearson Group be selected the successful proponent and directed that the remainder of the RFP process be conducted in public, save and except for financial, legal and related details of the negotiations that are required to be confidential to protect the City of Toronto's financial interest and the legal rights of the proponents.