Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
2/16/2016
Item
Tracking Status
This item was considered by Bid Committee on January 13, 2016 and was adopted without
amendment.
BD65.2
ACTION
Adopted
Ward:6
Description:
Recommended
Proponent:
Contract Award
Value:
Origin
(January 6, 2016) Report from the Director, Purchasing and Materials Management
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.BD65.2
1/3
Page 11
2/16/2016
Summary
Ward No:
6 - Etobicoke
Call Dates:
No. of Addenda
Issued:
Two (2)
Number of
Proposals:
Fourteen (14)
Firm Names
Abstrakt Studio Architecture
ATA Architects Inc
Baird Sampson Neuert Architects
Bortolotto Design Architect
Brooke McIlroy Architects
GH3
Gow Hastings Architects
Kongats Architects
Montgomery Sisam Architects
Oleson Worland Architects
RDH Architects
Taylor Smyth Architect
Teeple Architects
Ventin Group Architects
Fourteen (14) proposals were received.
Range of Scores
Division Contacts
Background Information
(January 6, 2016) Report from the Director, Purchasing and Materials Management on Award
of Request for Proposal No. 9118-15-5070 to Baird, Sampson Neuert Architects for
Professional and Technical Services for a New Pavilion in Humber Bay Park East
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/bd/bgrd/backgroundfile-87238.pdf)
Motions
Motion to Adopt Item (Carried)
That the Bid Committee grant authority to award Request for Proposal No. 9118-15-5070 to
Baird, Sampson Neuert Architects for Professional and Technical Services for a New Pavilion
in Humber Bay Park East, in accordance with the Contract Details set out in the report (January
6, 2016) from the Director, Purchasing and Materials Management, moved by Wendy Hoare.
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.BD65.2
2/3
Page 12
2/16/2016
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.BD65.2
3/3
Page 13
%'
BID COMMITTEE
CONTRACT AWARD
Award of Request for Proposal No. 9118-15-5070 to Baird,
Sampson Neuert Architects for Professional and Technical
Services for a New Pavilion in Humber Bay Park East
Date:
January 6, 2016
To:
Bid Committee
From:
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Director of Purchasing and Materials Management recommends that the Bid Committee grant
authority to award the following contract:
Call No:
RFP # 9118-15-5070
Description:
Recommended
Proponent:
Contract Award
Value:
1
Page 14
Financial Impact:
The contract award identified in this report is $675,682.37 including all applicable taxes
and charges and $597,949.00 net of all applicable taxes and charges. The cost to the City
is $608,472.89 net of HST recoveries.
Funding in the amount of $608,472.89 is included in the 2016 Preliminary Capital Budget
and 2017-2025 Preliminary Capital Plan for Parks, Forestry and Recreation.
Funding details are provided below:
WBS Element
Description
Date of Award to
Dec. 31st, 2016
(Net of HST
Recoveries)
(Net of HST
Recoveries)
(Net of HST
Recoveries)
Total
(Net of HST
Recoveries)
CPR-117-44-90
$ 31,110.07
CPR-116-46-06
$ 430,110.00
$ 87,252.82
$ 60,000.00
$ 577,362.82
Totals
$ 461,220.07
$ 87,252.82
$ 60,000.00
$ 608,472.89
$ 31,110.07
CALL SUMMARY
Ward No:
6 Etobicoke
Call Dates:
# of Addenda Issued:
Two (2)
Number of
Proposals:
Fourteen (14)
Firm Names
Abstrakt Studio Architecture
ATA Architects Inc
Baird Sampson Neuert Architects
Bortolotto Design Architect
Brooke McIlroy Architects
GH3
Gow Hastings Architects
Kongats Architects
Montgomery Sisam Architects
Oleson Worland Architects
RDH Architects
Taylor Smyth Architect
Teeple Architects
Ventin Group Architects
Fourteen (14) proposals were received.
Range of Scores
2
Page 15
Division Contacts
Joanne Kehoe
Manager, Professional Services
Purchasing and Materials
Management Division
Telephone: (416) 392-7323
E-mail: jkehoe@toronto.ca
Daniel Mclaughlin
Manager, Construction Management
Capital Projects Section
Parks, Forestry & Recreation
Telephone: (416) 395-7908
E-mail: dmclaug@toronto.ca
COMMENTS
For the recommended contract award, the following requirements have been met:
(a) The firm recommended for award is the lowest bidder meeting specifications or to
the highest scoring proponent based on the evaluation criteria included in the call
and meeting the requirements of the call;
(b) the appropriate Division has reviewed submissions and found the price to be
reasonable, within available budget and concurs with the recommendation;
(c) the total contract value is less than $20 million dollars (excluding applicable
taxes) and the contract terms is
i.
ii.
_________________________________________________________
Michael Pacholok
Director, Purchasing and Materials Management Division
3
Page 16
Project:
TEAM LEADER /
EVALUATION
FACILITATOR:
TEAM:
PETER
KLAMBAUER
CHERYL AELONGSPRY
MABRUCK
MENGELE
NETAMI STUART
AVERAGE OF
TOTAL
SCORES
TEAM AVERAGE*
FEE
RANKING BY
FEE
RANKING BY
TEAM
AVERAGE
EVALUATION
GH3
TAYLOR SMYTH ARCHITECT
RDH ARCHITECTS
BORTOLOTTO DESIGN ARCHITECT
ATA ARCHITECTS INC
KONGATS
GOW HASTINGS
OLESON WORLAND
MONTGOMERY SISAM
VENTIN GROUP
82
83.2
81.6
82.7
82.4
83.7
597,949
11
TEEPLE ARCHITECTS
BROOKE McILROY
ABSTRAKT STUDIO ARCHITECTURE
* "Team Average" is computed according to the average of individual total scores per proponent,
instead of being averaged by category. Individual team scoring is shown separately to illustrate range
of scores, which were generally in close proximity.
Criteria for Scoring:
0 No Value: Fails to address the component.
1 Poor: Minimally addresses the component, but one or more major considerations of the
component are not addressed.
2 Fair: The response addresses the component adequately, but minor considerations may not
be addressed.
3 Good: The response fully addresses the component and provides a good quality solution.
Good degree of confidence in the Bidder's response or proposed solution met.
4 Very Good: All considerations of the component are addressed with a high degree of
confidence in the Bidder's response or proposed solution.
5 Excellent: All considerations of the component are addressed with the highest degree of
confidence in the Bidder's response or proposed solution. The response exceeds the
requirements in providing a superior response or proposed solution.
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134