Michael Pacholok Purchasing and Materials Management Division Elena Caruso, Manager Director City Hall, 17th Floor, West Tower Goods and Services 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2
February 19, 2016 Via Internet Posting (17 pages) ADDENDUM NO. 4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 9117-15-0142 CLOSING DATE: APRIL 18, 2016 12:00 NOON (LOCAL TIME) (REVISED)
For: Total Design and Construction Support Services for the Construction of a New City of Toronto Marine Services Passenger and Vehicle Vessel Two-Envelope System
Please refer to the above Request for Proposal (RFP) document in your possession and be advised of the following questions/modifications:
CLOSING DATE EXTENSION
Please be advised that the closing date has been extended to April 18, 2016 12pm (noon local time)
DEADLINE FOR QUESTIONS EXTENSION
Please be advised that the deadline for written question has been extended to March 11, 2016
REVISIONS
R1) Remove in its entirety section 5.3 Subsection 7 – Conceptual Design and replace with the following:
Subsection 7 – Conceptual Design
It is important that the Vessel design meets the appropriate requirements of the City. To demonstrate the Proponent has a clear understanding of the needs, the Proponent should provide a conceptual design of a mock Vessel and should include but not limited to the following;
1. Conceptual design drawings/ 3D drawings
a. Include all outboard profile drawings to illustrate the proposed mock Vessel b. Include all general arrangement drawings to illustrate the proposed mock Vessel c. Include "cut-away" elevation drawings
2. The conceptual design drawings and/or 3D drawings should include but not limited to the following requirements:
a. The mock Vessel should be aesthetically pleasing, and should incorporate the nostalgic feeling of the previous Vessels while incorporating a more modern design.
b. The mock Vessel should demonstrate flexibility when converting between Vehicle and Passenger use.
1 of 17 c. The mock Vessel should demonstrate the capability of efficient loading and off-loading capabilities of both passengers and vehicles. d. The mock Vessel should be intended for year round operation on Lake Ontario (fresh water) in Ontario, Canada e. The mock Vessel should include the appropriate features to operate in Toronto Habour ice conditions. As per Environment Canada, use classification first year, thin lake ice: 5- 15 centimeters thick. f. The mock Vessel should be a multipurpose double-ended passenger and vehicle vessel with a single pilot house over upper passenger deck fitted with rotating controls for dual direction operation. g. The mock Vessel should demonstrate a capacity of between 1,000 - 1,300 passengers. h. The mock Vessel should include a roll-on/roll-off vehicle deck; should include an open vehicle/ passenger deck that can be reconfigurable to 80-110 lane-meters of vehicle space. The mock design should reflect a reduced passenger capacity when carrying both vehicles and passengers. i. The mock Vessel should include collapsible barriers or an equivalent method to achieve maximum passenger capacity. j. The mock Vessel should allow for passengers loading from both sides of the ferry using existing dock infrastructure (side door(s) should be incorporated for passenger use only and for special circumstances or emergency situations). k. The mock Vessel should include a single open Roll-On/Roll-Off vehicle deck configured for easy flow through traffic with direct loading/unloading at each end of the vessel using ramps with minimum obstruction; l. The mock Vessel should have an unobstructed height of at least 5.0 metres on the (main) vehicle deck for over height vehicles. m. The mock Vessel passenger accommodations should include but not limited to:
Interior seating for approximately 200-300 persons, in simple enclosed heated lounge; There should be sufficient deck space for foot passengers for a total of 800-1000 persons, in a covered sheltered area; One (1) fully accessible washroom. Suitable stowage spaces for first aid and other marine equipment should be provided. Provisions for 25 bicycles. Bike racks should be located to minimize the loss of vehicle space. j. The crew should be accommodated in a separate zone from all passenger spaces. The crew facilities should include a crew washroom. k. The mock Vessel should have appropriate dimensions to fit within the existing docking infrastructure.
2 of 17 l. The mock Vessel should include a propulsion system designed to maintain the schedule on one main engine with one stand-by unit;
m. The mock Vessel should include lateral thrusting capabilities for occasional use;
n. The mock Vessel should include but not limited to the following access and maintenance requirements
i. In general, access routes throughout the vessel should permit free movement by Vessel's personnel and passengers and should be clear of any obstructions. Machinery and equipment should be arranged such that proper clearance is provided for operating the Vessel, inspection, and performing repairs.
ii. Access should generally be provided by means of permanent ladders, doors, manholes, scuttles, and/or bolted plates.
iii. The design should address storage and maintenance requirements for when the Vessel is not in use (i.e. the design should allow boats to enter local dry docks surrounding Toronto or local lift maintenance boats) and the design should allow engine, transmission replacement or accessibility, and ease of repairs;
R2) Remove Section 4.2 Selection Criteria in its entirety and replace with the following:
4.2 Selection Criteria
Each Proposal shall be evaluated based on the following criteria and weights:
Evaluation Criteria Points Available Minimum Points Required Experience and Qualifications 40 26 Proposed Staff Team and Resources 30 19.5 Understanding of RFP, Proposed Solution 40 26 & Workplan and Deliverables Conceptual Design 30 19.5 Sub-Total 140 105 Cost 35 N/A Total 175
R3) Remove Section 4.3 Selection Process, Paragraph 4 in its entirety and replace with the following:
A Proponent's technical portion of the Proposal must score a minimum of 75% (or 105 points) overall for the Cost of Services envelope to be opened and evaluated. Proposals with Technical Proposal scores below 75% will not be considered further.
R4) Remove Appendix E – Proposed Evaluation Table(s) and replace with Appendix E – Proposed Evaluation Table(s) – Revised as per Addendum 4 as attached to this addendum.
R5) The use of Lloyd's Register of Shipping was defined as the only Classification Society to be utilized within this Project. Anywhere within the RFP document that specifies Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the City will now allow the Vendor to use Lloyd's Register of Shipping or any other Recognized Organization (RO). A RO is a classification society that holds a valid Authorization Agreement with Transport Canada and is recognized by the Minister to perform inspection and certification services on their behalf, as defined on the Transport Canada website.
3 of 17
R6) Remove Appendix D – Supplementary Submission Forms – Price Detail Form and replace with Appendix D – Revised as per Addendum 4 – Supplementary Submission Forms – Price Detail Form as attached to this addendum.
The following changes have been made:
Pricing Form – Phase 3 will be priced based on the Builder location in Ontario. Should a Builder be hired outside of Ontario, the City (upon appropriate City approval) will allow a Travel and Accommodation Contingency Allowance of $100,000 to apply. There will be no mark-up on travel and accommodation costs allowed and all original receipts must be provided to the City for approval.
R7) Remove 3.2 Time Constraints and Replace in its entirety the following:
3.2.1 The Project timeline has been established as follows:
3.2.1.1 June 2016 – Award Total Design and Construction Support Services RFP 3.2.1.2 July 2016 – December 2016 – Complete Design for the Vessel 3.2.1.3 January 2017 – February 2017 – Obtain Lloyd's Register of Shipping and Transport Canada Design Approval 3.2.1.4 March 2017 – July 2017 – Assemble subsequent RFP 3.2.1.5 October 2017 – December 2017 – Award Builder RFP 3.2.1.6 January 2018 – April 2019 – Completion and delivery of new Vessel
3.2.2 The new Vessel must be operational and entered into revenue service by April 2019.
3.2.3 This timeline is subject to change and appropriate written notice of any changes will be provided where feasible.
R8) Remove 3.3.3.5 and 5.3 Subsection 8 G. and replace with the following;
Payment will be based on the schedule below:
Phase 1 – Preliminary Design - 15% of cost – paid upon completion of this part of phase – Final Design - 15% of cost – paid upon completion of this part of phase Phase 2 – Consultation services during development, selection and award of subsequent RFP for a Builder – 15% of cost – paid upon completion of this phase Phase 3 – Project Management – 50% of cost – to be paid on a monthly basis. Phase 4 – Post Construction – 5% of cost – final payment to be paid upon delivery
In addition, all invoices must indicate the name of the Project Manager. The original invoices are to be sent to Accounts Payable (as indicated in Section F, Point 3), but an additional invoice (marked copy) should be sent electronically to the Project Manager.
R9) Insert 3.7.1.31 into the RFP document;
3.7.1.31 The vendor must keep in mind that the Final Vessel design must fit within the existing docking infrastructure in way of the intended route - Jack Layton Ferry Terminal, Ward's Island Dock, Centre Island Dock, and Hanlan's Point Dock. The Vendor is responsible, at their own cost as part of award, for their preliminary and final design to suit the intended operation waterways including depth design suitability, including dimensional and motor design for docking suitability and crossing suitability (Crossing suitability may include vessel cruising speed, top speed, turning radius, responsiveness, balanced against time
4 of 17 and enjoyment factor for the end users to enjoy the scenic and visual City waterfront and island topography);
R10) Remove in its entirety 5.2.f) must submit a 3D scale model – See Section 5.3 Subsection 7 for requirements (Mandatory).
R11) Insert 5.3 Subsection 4 – Proposed Staff Team and Resources, 1 (g) One member must be certified as a Professional Engineer (Naval Architecture/ Marine) and provide proof of Engineering membership to appropriate licensing and regulating body.
R12) Remove 3.3.3.4 f) in its entirety and replace with the following: f) Possession of a Current Transport Canada "Master Mariner Certification" or "First-Class Engineer" Motor Vessel Certification or proven experience in design and construction management services of a passenger vessel operated in Canada of a minimum 60 gross tons.
R13) Remove 5.3 Subsection 4 – Proposed Staff Team and Resources – 1 c) in its entirety and replace with the following:
1. c) One member of the proposed staff team must possess a current "Transport Canada Master Mariner Certification" or "First-Class Engineer Motor Vessel Certification" or proven experience in design and construction management services of a passenger vessel operated in Canada of a minimum 60 gross tons. The Proponent is to provide a copy of the certification or proof of proven experience. Should this information not be included at the time of submission, Proponents must provide it within five (5) Business Days of a written request from the City.
R14) Please insert Appendix H – Passenger Yearly Total 2014-2016 for information regarding current passenger volumes.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A copy of the Powerpoint presentation that was presented during the Mandatory Meeting has been included for download.
A copy of the RFP for The Jack Layton Ferry Terminal and Harbour Square Park Innovative Design Competition as posted by Waterfront Toronto has been included for download.
A list of the Companies that attended the Mandatory Site Meeting either in Person or via WebEx has been attached to this addendum.
QUESTIONS
Technical
Q1) The RFP makes reference to the City’s Environment and Energy Division environmental data to set design criteria. Can this data be provided? A1) The data from the Environmental and Energy Division will not be released however when the Contract is awarded and the Vendor attends the Kick-Off meeting for the Preliminary Design Phase, the Environmental and Energy Division representative will be in attendance to provide their feedback as per the Data collected.
5 of 17 Q2) The RFP notes that the design is to incorporate an “International Paint Specification”. Is the design (and build) constrained to use International as the coatings supplier, or can other alternatives be considered? A2) Please remove International, there is no coatings supplier to be named.
Q3) The RFP requires testing with the “design propeller” in addition to a stock propeller. As the final propeller design will normally be supplied as part of an integrated equipment package, which will be procured by the shipyard, can this requirement be removed? A3) This question will be replied to via Addendum # 5.
Q4) The vehicle deck is variously specified as having 90 lane metres and 20*5.34 (=107) lane metres. Can the City confirm which applies? A4) Please refer to Revision R1).
Q5) Can the City provide additional insight into the ferry concept of operations, particularly with respect to the carriage of vehicles? How frequent will services carrying vehicles be? A5) Vessel should be capable of transporting vehicles and Passengers on every trip.
Q6) Is there a requirement for speed of reconfiguration from passenger to pass+vehicle configurations? A6) The City is looking for between 2 to 4 hours as appropriate reconfiguration timelines.
Q7) Will this be accomplished by vessel crew or by shore personnel, or by a combination? A7) A Combination of Vessel crew and shore personnel.
Q8) Can the City provide information on dimensional constraints for the new vessels; i.e. max draft, beam, breadth and length to meet docking/berthing constraints? A8) Currently, we suggest Max Breadth = 35', Max Draft = 8' and Max Depth of 12'. The Vendor will be required to confirm existing infrastructure prior to Preliminary Design phase of the contract.
Q9) In addition to meeting statutory requirements, will the vessel be required to meet any supplementary class notations for such items as noise and vibration levels, automation, etc.? A9) Yes, as per applicable Transport Canada and Class Society rules/regulations
Q10) Can the maximum deadweight requirements be identified; and/or the maximum number of tractor trailers to be carried? A10) A maximum of 2 tractor trailers to be carried.
Q11) Will vehicles transporting dangerous goods be carried? A11) Yes. Liquid Chlorine and fuel trucks on designated runs with no other passengers or vehicles on board.
Q12) Will the City request Transport Canada to authorize the classification society to undertake statutory certifications? A12) Yes. As per Transport Canada Delegated Statutory Authority Program.
Q13) The proponent is required to include in the team a master marine or first class engineer. Can the City explain the role of this individual as the scope of supply does not include any items for which this experience would normally be required? A13) Please see Revision R12) and Revision R13)
6 of 17
Q14) The ferry capacity requirements refer to 300 internal seats, 1000 external seats, and “sufficient deck space for foot passengers”. Can the City confirm that the maximum capacity is intended to be 1300 passengers, and explain the meaning of the requirement regarding foot passengers? A14) Refer to Revision R1), foot passengers refer to standing room passengers.
Q15) The RFP states that the open vehicle/passenger deck is to be reconfigurable to 90 lane metres of vehicle space and 800 passengers. Should this read "or" rather than "and"? A15) Refer to Revision R1).
Q16) Can an indicative number for the capacity of bike racks be provided? A16) Please see Revision R1).
Q17) The vessel is required to comply with the Code of Practice – Ferry Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities. Does this mean full compliance for all decks, washrooms, seating arrangements, etc, which will require multiple elevators and much specialized seating? A17) Vessel is required to be compliant with Code of Practice – Ferry Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities. All spaces are not required to be accessible.
Q18) Can it be assumed that the new vessels will be required to maintain current sailing schedules, or are these likely to be adjusted given the greater capacity of the new vessels? A18) Schedules may be adjusted as the City requires.
Q19) Neither the majority of the existing ferry berths nor materials readily available for the new terminal show vehicle loading ramps at most berthing locations. Will the ramps installed on the ferries need to be able to accommodate a variety of shore-side arrangements for vehicle loading? A19) It is intended that vehicles will only be loaded at 1 existing shore dock and 2 existing island docks, not all docks.
Q20) In section 3.0.7, it is stated that the costs related to Lloyd’s Register shall be borne by the Vendor. Are these costs to cover both design and construction? A20) The costs related to any classification society work shall be the responsibility of the Vendor for all stages of the Project.
Q21) It is a requirement is section 3.3.3.4 (f) and Subsection 4 1(c) that the vendor shall have one member of the team to be a Transport Canada certified Master Mariner or a First Class Engineer, can you advise the reasoning behind this requirement. A21) Please see A13 above for further information.
Q22) Section 3.3.3.4(e) requires the proponent to be certified as a Professional Engineer but Subsection 4 of Section 5.3 does not have this requirement. Can you clarify if a Professional Engineer designation is required or not? A22) Please refer to Revision R11).
Q23) Can you advise the crewing numbers for the existing ferries? Is there an expectation that this number would be reduced for the new ferries? A23) Approximately 5 individuals and currently there is no expectation this would be reduced.
Q24) Can you provide drawings for the existing berths showing current and proposed passenger and vehicle ingress and egress? Would you also include any draft restrictions at the berths?
7 of 17 A24) The City currently does not have appropriate drawings showing existing berths however using the Google Maps Satellite view will give the Proponents a rough scale of the docks. Please refer to answer A8) for draft restrictions.
Q25) Can you advise if there are any speed, wake or noise restrictions in Toronto Harbour? A25) Yes, all restrictions are as per Ports Toronto, please see link below for all restrictions.
http://www.portstoronto.com/Port/About-Us/Practices-and-Procedures.aspx
Q26) Can you advise if there are required transit times for each of the routes that the ferries operate on? Are there any requirements for passenger and vehicle loading and unloading times? A26) Currently no, the City will present expectations to the vendor during the Preliminary Design kick- off meeting but nothing required at this time.
Q27) Subsection 7 (a) states that the ferry is to operate year round; can you advise what maximum ice conditions we are to use in the design? A27) Please refer to Revision R1).
Q28) Subsection 7 (d) and (f), can you please confirm that the 90 lane meters in section (d) and the 20 AEQ of 5.34 m each in section (f) are correct. A28) Please see A4)
Q29) Can you advise if the following design conditions are correct? maximum 1300 passengers/no vehicles, maximum 800 passengers/90 lane meters of vehicle space, less than 800 Passengers(number to be determined)/ 20 AEQ A29) Please see Revision R1).
Q30) Subsection 7, please confirm that all four ferries are to be designed to carry 20 AEQ’s? A30) As part of this Project, there will be one design that will be used for the purpose of building all of the Vessels.
Q31) Will the City consider any hybrid or alternate fuel arrangements for the ferry propulsion system for fuel savings and reduced pollution purposes? A31) Yes, as long as it does not affect operation times.
Q32) Phase #2 Section 3.8.9.4, With regards to the selection of shipyards and evaluation visits, is there an expectation on the number of shipyards that would be visited and is there an expectation where these shipyards would be? Are the building yards limited to Canada, North America or fully open world-wide? A32) The City would prefer North America due to the requirement of getting the Vessel to the dock upon completion however there is no restriction on location; the subsequent RFP will state a maximum of 5 Proponents will have their shipyards evaluated.
Q33) Phase #2 Section 3.8.9.3, Can the City provide expectations on the number of evaluation meetings? A33) No not until we know how many formal submissions are received. The City will attempt to schedule meetings appropriately and supply the Vendor with an appropriate amount of lead time for these evaluation meetings.
8 of 17 Q34) Phase #3 Section 3.9.12.4, during build of the vessel, Section 3.9.12.4 calls for periodic visits to the shipyard, can the City provide expectations on the number and duration of visits. A34) No.
Q35) Phase #3 Section 3.9.6, In order to assess the impact of attending shop trials, can the City advise if major machinery will be North American manufacture or is this open internationally. A35) Open internationally.
Q36) Phase #4, Can the City provide any expectations for number of visits to be made during this phase. A36) There are no expectations for number of visits, the City expects the Vendor to make necessary number of visits to ensure all information/ documents are received. If any defects are discovered then it will be the Vendor's responsibility to notify the Builder the nature and extent of the defects which may require additional visits to the City.
Q37) (From Section 3.5.18) The design is required to meet or improve upon limitations of the current fleet regarding environmental conditions such as wind gust/strength and wave height/frequency. Can the City provide the operational limitations of the current fleet and/or the threshold beyond which the City suspends operations due to safety concerns? A37) Current limitation are ice thickness greater than 10cm, and passenger capacities are reduced by 50% during wind speeds over 22km/hr.
Q38) (From Subsection 7 – Conceptual Design, 3a) Can the city provide clarification on ice operations, specifically the thickness and degree of ice cover the vessel is required to operate in? A38) Please see Revision R1).
Q39) Can the City provide information on current and potential systems for ice management at the winter ferry terminals, and the use and nature of supplementary ice management along the route? A39) Toronto Fire vessel currently breaks the ice for the harbour.
Q40) Can the City provide monthly statistics on the number of passengers currently using each route of the service? A40) Please refer to Revision R14).
Q41) Can the City provide voyage and traffic information for a peak summer weekend operation; e.g. the vessels used on each route, the number of passengers carried hourly in each direction, etc? A41) Revision R14) is the best traffic information currently assembled.
Q42) Can the City provide monthly statistics on the levels and types of vehicle traffic currently using the service? A42) The City does not currently have this information.
Q43) Can the City provide current crewing levels and qualification breakdowns for each of the vessels? A43) Please see A23) for current crewing levels, qualifications as follows:
(p/s Trillium: 1 Master, 1 Mate, 1 Steam Engineer, 1 Oiler, 3 Deckhands; m/v Ongiara: 1 Master, 1 Mate, 1 Deckhand, 1 Marine Engineer; m/v Thomas Rennie & m/v Sam McBride: 1 Master, 1 Mate, 3 Deckhands, 1 Marine Engineer; m/v Wm. Inlgis: 1 Master, 1 Mate, 2 Deckhands, 1 Marine Engineer)
9 of 17 Contractual
Q44) The proposed timeline for the design phase appears to be extremely tight, given for example: a. The need for a series of reviews and public consultations between the preliminary and final design stages (3 drafts of preliminary package); b. The probable need for a model testing program for performance verification. Can the City provide guidance as to how proposals for a more realistic schedule will be evaluated? A44) Refer to Revision R7).
Q45) In Phase III of the Project, the Vendor is required to register the vessel and to obtain the statutory certificates. This would normally be the responsibility of the Builder and Owner, and cannot easily be done by an agent. Can the City clarify its expectations? A45) The Vendor shall oversee and ensure that this is completed on behalf of the City.
Q46) For the optional pricing, does the RFP scope of work for the Construction Phase apply in full to both vessels or only to the lead vessel? Is the Proponent free to propose a recommended scope for vessel 2? A46) The main pricing is for the first Vessel, optional pricing only applies to the 2nd Vessel should the City decide to proceed with construction of the 2nd Vessel. The scope will be the exact same for Vessel 2 as it would be for Vessel 1.
Q47) The Intellectual property rights clauses of the RFP package note that all IP will vest in the City, without limitation. In the event that a proponent proposes the use of an existing or modified existing design, how will this clause be applied and interpreted? A47) The Intellectual Property rights clause is within the document to ensure that the City has the right to make alterations in appearance and specific changes to the detailed design or changes to parts or accessories for any future Vessel(s) that the City wishes to have built, without payment to, permission from or the requirement to enter into another contract with the Vendor or any third parties. The City understands owning the OEM IP for equipment is unrealistic however sufficient information with regards to this equipment is required for the future builds. The City will allow other Municipalities, Provinces and other levels of government and government agencies to use the design.
How this is achieved, either through full ownership or through a perpetual, unconditional, irrevocable license to the City to use, copy, modify, adapt, and convert the entire design package at no additional cost to the City, will be negotiated during the contract creation between the City and the Vendor.
Q48) City expectations are outside of industry practice. Are these clauses intended to apply to both foreground and background IP? A48) Refer to A47)
Q49) Do they apply to OEM IP for equipment used in the design? A49) Refer to A47)
Q50) Will these clauses restrict the proponent’s ability to offer the design to other clients? A50) Refer to A47)
Q51) Will the City accept an unlimited license for use of the IP, rather than ownership? A51) Refer to A47)
10 of 17
Q52) In reference to Section 3.3.3.5 (Page 11 of 93) will the City entertain alternative milestone payment schedules? A52) Please see Revision R8).
Q53) The RFP requires the submission of a 1/500 scale model of the vessel. If the proposed design is 50m long, the model will be 10cm in length, which will not be sufficient to provide any real insight into the characteristics of the vessel in comparison to the concept drawings. Will the City reconsider the need for this item? A53) Please see Revision R10).
Q54) The proponent is required to provide a fixed price for all phases of the work, including construction supervision. This price must include travel, travel time etc. As the location of the Builder is unknown, can the City provide an assumption that can be used for the determination of these costs? A54) Please see Revision R6).
Q55) As the supervision costs will be schedule dependent, and bidders may offer different schedules and prices, will the supervision costs be adjustable to allow the selection of the overall best value offering? A55) No, all costs are considered lump sum and will incorporate all supervision costs.
Q56) At different places in the RFP the project milestones appear to be indicative or firm. Will the City be prepared to adjust the milestones based on actual costs to the Proponent? A56) Refer to A45)
Q57) Is the selection of Lloyd’s Register as the classification society firm? If so, has LR provided a quotation for the approval of the drawings and data listed in the RFP? A57) Please see Revision R5).
Q58) The RFP lists (p35 of 93) various information to be included in subsection 3 of the proposal. It is not clear whether this is asking for the same or different information in the different bullet points of item 1. For example, (a) asks for 3-5 examples of similar projects, while (d) asks for a minimum of 3 references. Are these the same thing? (c) requests information on credentials; can the City please clarify how these differ from skills, experience and expertise in (b)? The information required includes final contract values, which may not be releasable for many projects under contract Ts and Cs. Is it sufficient to provide indicative information? A58) A) are examples of similar projects that your firm have completed or currently working on and list full detail of the scope and size of the project, where d) is asking for exact references, including name and contact information for work that has been completed by your firm. These references may be from the same projects listed for the firms experience or they can be different, that is up to the Proponent.
C) request for credentials are for proof of certifications, designations and any other relevant credential that can be used for this project, where skills, experience and expertise is used to demonstrate the team has the capability, expertise and ability to complete this project.
Q59) Many of the mandatory contractual terms and conditions require compliance with Ontario law and municipal by-laws “without limitation”. As work may be conducted by non-Ontario residents outside the province, can all these requirements be considered “as applicable?”
11 of 17 A59) All of these requirement are considered as applicable. If the work is conducted by non-Ontario residents outside the province, they are expected to comply with appropriate laws and by-laws as determined by their location. All work must be conducted in accordance with Transport Canada and the appropriate Classification Society approval.
Q60) In light of the change of closing and information meeting dates, will the date for questions also be extended? A60) Please see Deadline for Questions Extension.
Q61) Does the City have a budgetary estimate for the ferry project? Will the ships be “design to cost” constrained? A61) This question will be replied to via Addendum # 5.
Q62) Can the City indicate what level of royalty it will pay in the event that the design package for ferries 1 and 2 is reused for ferries 3 and 4? A62) There will be no royalty paid, please refer to Appendix B, 14. Ownership of Intellectual Property and Deliverables and A47) of this Addendum for further information
Should you have any questions regarding this addendum contact Corporate Buyer, Brian Pittens at (416) 397-4813 or by e-mail at [email protected]
Please attach this addendum to your RFP document and be governed accordingly. Bidders must acknowledge receipt of all addenda in their Proposal in the space provided on the Proposal Submission Form, page 47, as per the Process Terms and Conditions in Appendix A, Section 4 - Addenda, page 30 of the RFP document. All other aspects of the RFP remain the same.
Sincerely,
Robert Babin, Supervisor Purchasing, Goods and Services II
12 of 17 APPENDIX D – Revised as per Addendum 4 SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION FORMS PRICE DETAIL FORM
Proponents must submit the Price Detail Form in the same or similar format as below and it must contain the following information at minimum.
For instructions on completing this form, see section 5.3, subsection 8.
Professional Services for Design and Construction Support Services for the construction of a new City of Toronto Marine Services Passenger and Vehicle Vessel
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE: TOTAL PRICE: 1. Phase 1 – Total design services for the Construction of a new City of Toronto Marine Services Vessel. Refer to section 3.7 for further details. $ ______2. Phase 2 – Provision of Consulting services to assemble the subsequent RFP and selection of a Builder. Refer to section 3.8. $ ______3. Phase 3 – Provision of construction support services during the entire construction phase leading to the certification of the new Vessel by Transport Canada Marine Safety and Technical Services Authority and Lloyd's Register of $ ______Shipping. Refer to Section 3.9 for further details. 4. Phase 4 – Post Construction Services (this amount will be held back until all closeout documents specified are provided to the City). Refer to Section 3.10 for $ ______further details. 5. Sub-total (line items 1+2+3+4) $ ______
6. Cash Allowance $50,000.00 7. Contingency Allowance $100,000.00 8. Phase # 3 – Travel and Accommodation Contingency Allowance – See $100,000.00 Addendum 4 Revision for further details 9. Sub-total (line items (5+6+7+8) $ ______
10. HST at 13% (for line item 9) $ ______
11. Total Fee (total line items 9+10) $ ______
OPTIONAL PRICING: 1. Optional Project Management during the construction and delivery of a second $ ______Vessel. Refer to Section 3.3.2 for further details. INFORMATIONAL PRICING Preliminary construction cost estimate as per 5.2.h).iv). (this estimate has no effect on total design on the vessel and will be used for information purposes only to assist $______the City with budgeting implications).
13 of 17
Mandatory Meeting Attendance Jastram Technologies Ltd. R.C. Johnston Naval Architect Canal Marine & Industrial Inc. Vard Marine 3GA Marine Ltd. Lengkeek Vessel Eng. Fleetway Inc. JDK Consultants Alion Science and Technology Robert Allan Ltd. Allswater E.Y.E. Marine Consultants Concept Naval Wartsila Capilano Maritime Design Ltd. Aspin Kemp & Associates (AKA Group) Guido Perla & Associates Inc. Hughes Offshore and Shipping Services
As noted in Section 2.2 of the RFP document, only Proposals submitted by Proponents listed above will be considered. Proposals submitted by Proponents that did not attend the mandatory information meeting in person or via WebEx shall be declared non-compliant and will not be considered.
14 of 17 RFP No. 9117-15-0142 Appendix E - Proposed Evaluation Table(s) - Revised as per Addendum 4
Proponent's Name ______
Stage 1. Mandatory Requirements 1. Mandatory Submission Requirements (Section 5.2) PASS/FAIL Stage 2. Technical Proposal Evaluation (refer to Section 5.3) Minimum Required Evaluation Criteria Available Points Points Awarded Points A. Experience and Qualifications of the Proponent 40 26 B. Proposed Staff Team and Resources 30 19.5 C. Understanding of RFP, Proposed Solution & Workplan and Deliverables 40 26 D. Conceptual Design 30 19.5 Stage 3. Interview (if applicable) Should an interview be scheduled, the interview will be used to clarify potential issues and adjust, if necessary, Proponent's scores assigned under the Stage above. Sub-Total 140 105 Stage 4. Cost of Services Proposal Evaluation (refer to Section 5.2 h))
Formula: [(lowest proposal cost price divided by Proponent's 35 N/A proposal price) x 30]
Total 175 N/A
Non Functional Requirements Scoring Description Score Rating Detailed Description Exceeds all elements of the requirement in a very desirable way with 10 Excellent distinct value added to the City.
9 Very Good Meets or exceeds all elements of the requirement.
8 Good Fully meets all elements of the requirement.
Adequately meets all elements of the requirement. May be lacking in 7 Somewhat Good some areas that are not critical. Adequately meets most of the elements of the requirement. May be 6 Average lacking in some areas that are not critical. Barely meets all the elements of the requirement at a minimally 5 Below Average acceptable level. May be lacking in some areas that are not critical. Barely meets most of the elements of the requirement at a minimally 4 Somewhat Weak acceptable level. May be lacking in some areas that are not critical. Minimally meets most of the elements of the requirement, but lacking in 3 Weak critical areas. Minimally addresses some, but not all, of the elements of the 2 Poor requirement. Lacking in critical areas. Does not meet critical elements of the requirement. Would be difficult or 1 Very Poor impossible to implement. Does not satisfy the elements of the requirement in any manner. Blank 0 Unacceptable responses also score at this level.
15 of 17 Ferry Docks Passenger Comparative Analysis 2007/2008/2009/2010/2011/2012/2013
2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2015 2014 2015 Day Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar Mar Apr Apr Apr May May May Jun Jun Jun Jul Jul 1 522 601 424 703 664 783 747 568 1490 2350 13140 1832 15851 17906 2 514 856 394 608 486 572 889 443 1041 7065 2483 3268 5297 10005 3 509 711 369 547 690 607 556 1741 1036 7131 2780 3990 6047 13110 4 640 557 377 484 612 670 788 1276 2388 1370 3514 3702 10506 19724 5 520 586 415 413 644 511 836 535 1286 1288 3427 3415 21646 19279 6 493 565 378 330 645 572 1704 888 1664 869 7759 10840 17235 8841 7 0 558 1451 467 682 642 582 832 1181 860 15114 8742 2872 2925 8 0 607 301 652 668 613 621 180 1517 3394 5366 1294 2035 7557 9 483 605 337 620 564 648 785 505 2326 6943 4963 2209 5252 5472 10 539 96 223 553 702 569 855 740 4984 3562 4235 3230 9125 10609 11 540 643 464 515 672 682 975 1239 6376 1295 1361 7932 12221 16534 12 515 595 293 713 581 441 2161 3085 1247 4016 3014 9892 25376 13165 13 465 540 369 731 601 537 1203 866 1050 1549 4025 19805 6070 6836 14 513 653 428 610 796 774 720 1154 1066 2950 12159 17258 6017 2146 15 175 524 322 905 13 623 614 1159 1045 1164 12253 3053 4648 7854 16 560 682 442 706 606 673 848 874 1440 9995 3501 4926 6727 9601 17 477 676 237 776 613 504 996 1869 3216 13922 4968 5300 8095 1929 18 572 240 612 601 720 3733 4442 5880 12965 4362 3896 10473 23442 19 490 639 597 429 697 1380 6564 1744 16214 4577 7754 6959 10694 15333 20 484 542 587 197 1102 5912 662 1141 1885 7103 17732 6970 9578 21 390 623 563 851 665 2018 838 1029 2598 20286 11069 10109 8861 22 427 619 518 664 480 850 671 2827 2257 18983 6661 12281 11273 23 545 757 751 702 600 1189 822 1402 8873 5344 4205 5039 10609 24 454 682 614 679 501 1564 1032 10442 11666 2465 6702 10035 11124 25 474 725 497 596 422 697 2581 14324 2021 4115 3914 11984 14389 26 471 552 578 591 281 1098 2779 5104 3397 6661 10170 13035 18144 27 608 610 568 654 418 2429 844 1775 2718 10085 1302 13293 10035 28 501 765 710 637 699 1619 2422 1942 4022 16167 442 3679 10867 29 423 621 928 624 501 2199 2763 5071 10019 9634 5821 10534 30 554 606 841 634 571 1694 4993 4405 10936 3380 7287 12643 31 590 885 934 554 12455 581 9758 11284 Total 14448 18921 7224 16928 11269 0 20112 8360 0 44625 40684 0 116644 136759 0 228342 196754 0 295478 351609 YTD 14448 18921 7224 31376 30190 7224 51488 38550 7224 96113 79234 7224 212757 215993 7224 441099 412747 7224 736577 764356
16 of 17 Ferry Docks Passenger Comparative Analysis 2007/2008/2009/2010/2011/2012/2013
2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Jul Aug Aug Aug Sept Sept Sept Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov Nov Dec Dec Dec 9678 16685 18709 9378 731 1865 771 778 679 467 12966 20348 3207 10609 1703 1291 1318 757 628 608 20300 18052 6074 7205 1388 1260 789 1338 705 495 17784 6636 3966 10535 2546 1766 697 1536 852 457 4219 12859 3470 16648 2118 859 759 899 707 705 12141 11351 4927 19906 1070 1334 916 533 1285 361 11371 12393 11434 20270 1136 1729 872 1129 665 319 12018 15854 2883 1585 1098 1502 697 1410 653 424 20152 20571 2169 1487 1407 1087 834 862 565 510 20794 3646 1658 4347 1549 3441 701 414 585 731 11630 7517 2134 2109 3279 5616 1050 546 535 668 3608 11269 2433 1926 3811 5420 614 473 684 390 9797 12659 1756 1939 1333 868 286 514 229 328 7866 3953 6102 2671 1339 813 789 757 699 540 8688 19607 1507 2948 777 934 829 1122 583 602 6334 22525 1875 3415 945 889 537 568 618 433 17212 11239 2461 3638 615 1151 530 490 520 605 11599 4083 1713 4325 1015 898 540 635 760 482 11210 12030 2080 2137 1478 977 611 527 779 455 3638 4263 6913 8377 728 668 556 703 914 523 6883 12047 2677 1705 703 562 731 426 959 433 10534 21473 1293 2174 1150 1106 645 438 875 579 11898 17864 2262 2787 1427 1216 751 443 690 641 17972 9000 2137 2731 1312 469 629 551 636 863 11347 8310 2952 2648 1746 1574 646 534 540 836 8607 6115 3969 7844 1496 976 763 763 742 661 9665 9108 9544 7602 1066 891 879 353 955 544 10000 11318 8895 874 798 260 670 842 852 319 10565 13187 2534 487 813 558 804 414 808 328 16644 13378 1298 1683 950 813 651 592 783 616 13836 8839 797 1001 626 480 0 360956 378179 0 125032 165990 0 42324 43794 0 21865 21347 0 22111 16403 0 7224 1097533 1142535 7224 1222565 1308525 7224 1264889 1352319 7224 1286754 1373666 7224 1308865 1390069 7224
17 of 17