Michael Pacholok, Director Purchasing and Materials Management Division City Hall, 18th Floor, West Tower 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2

Allison Phillips Manager Professional Services

June 10, 2016 Posted in PDF (4 pages + 1 attachment)

ADDENDUM NO. 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 9117-16-7118

FOR: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR

WATERMAIN BREAKAGE REDUCTION STUDY CLOSING: JUNE 17, 2016, 12:00 NOON (LOCAL TORONTO TIME)

Please refer to the above Request for Proposal (RFP) document in your possession and be advised of the following: I. MANDATORY INFORMATION MEETING The following firms attended the mandatory information meeting on June 8, 2016 at Metro Hall,

55 John Street, Room 304:

AECOM Cole Engineering HDR Inc. Pure Technologies PICA Corporation R. V. Anderson Black & Veatch Stantec Rajani Consultants WSP Echologics

II. ATTACHMENT

TW RFP Consulting Agreement - Template

III. REVISIONS

Section 3.6.8 – Project Specific Tasks and Deliverables Delete the sentence, "Allow 20 business days for the City to review draft report, comment and request changes".

1

2

IV. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Q1 With regards to the above noted RFP.

The 77 pages of the RFP does not include a Specimen Contract Agreement, including Insurance Forms. (Attached is a Specimen Contract from a recent Toronto RFP 9117-16-7052) Please confirm if the attached Specimen Contract will be used for the execution of this RFP upon award to the winning Vendor.

A1 Please refer to the attached Consulting Agreement that will be used at the time of execution. Q2 We request that the City please provide a two week extension to the submission deadline. A2 After consideration, the closing date remains unchanged. Q3 The cost tables in Appendix E are for a Unit Price contract. We note that page 26 of the

RFP includes a schedule of hourly rates “for any part of the work to be paid for on a time basis”. Please confirm that the City does want our hourly rates (it is possible that they may be needed for scope changes). Also, under the work plan (RFP 5.3.6.i, page 22) there is a request for “key tasks and timeline with time breakdown for each assigned staff to the tasks”. Please confirm what the City is looking for. Is this a time task matrix, or is there some other way that we should show which staff are involved in each task. A time task matrix may be needed to verify the City’s request for time allocation for the Technical Lead and GIS Specialist. Please also confirm if invoicing will be on a time and materials basis, or if it will be lump sump based on deliverable.

A3 Proponents should provide a schedule of hourly rates for all project personnel and a breakdown of

the time allotment in hours for each staff member required to complete the tasks. This information may be presented in the form of a time-task matrix or similar. Invoicing for this project will be done on a time and expense basis.

Q4 RFP 5.3.6 (page 22) requests the workplan be structured to match RFP 3.6, however that layout/structure is slightly different from the cost table. Will the City allow some flexibility with this structure?

A4 The City will allow for flexibility with the work plan structure; however, the individual key tasks

as identified in the Price Detail Form (Table E1) must be specified (e.g. the Proponent may choose to include, and group, smaller sub-tasks associated for each of the individual key tasks as identified in the Price Detail Form).

Q5 Over the past 20 years, can you provide a summary of approximately how many water main breaks have occurred in the City. For example:

a. 1995 - 950 breaks b. 1996 –980 breaks c. Etc.

A5 This data can be found on the City of Toronto Open Data website:

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=31a525884184a310VgnVCM1000003dd60f89RCRD

2

3

Q6 Over the past 20 years, can you provide a summary of approximately how many kilometers

of water main the City had in service. For example: a. 1995 - 4,900km b. 1996 – 5,000 km c. Etc.

A6 2015: Approximately 6,100 km total (distribution/transmission)

1995: Approximately 5,500 km total Q7 What is the approximate average length of the 550 watermain coupon samples referenced

(e.g. 0.5m, 1m, 10m)?

A7 Approximately 0.3m- 0.5m Q8 Does the City have readily available data regarding the construction contractor that

installed the pipe? A8 This information is not readily available, but may be able to be located upon request on a case by

case basis. Q9 In the future, what proportion of water main replacement, structural lining, and cathodic

protection work does the City anticipate being performed by in-house resources versus contracted resources, respectively? (e.g. replacement – 50% contractor; 50% in-house; lining – 100% contractor; cathodic protection – 100% in-house)

A9 The majority, 95%+, is contracted out. Q10 Are there additional direct soil corrosivity measurements readily available and spatially

associated, beyond the data that will be developed in this project (550 watermain coupons)? If so, please describe the quantity and nature of the measurements.

A10 Additional soil corrosivity measurements have been taken through various independent studies,

but are not compiled in an easily accessible manner. As such, proponents should assume that the soil corrosivity measurements provided within coupon sample reports are the only soil resistivity data that will be provided by the City.

Q11 Are there additional direct begging/backfill data readily available and spatially associated,

beyond the data that will be developed in this project (550 watermain coupons)? If so, please describe the quantity and nature of the data.

A11 No historical bedding/backfill practices will be provided by the City beyond what is available

within the coupon sample data. The Proponent is asked to make reasonable assumptions. Q12 Could you please clarify the number of days the City requires to review documents? The

RFP included conflicting statements: Page 13 of 77 states ‘Allow 20 business days for the City to review draft report,

comment and request changes’ Page 22 of 77 states ‘Allow a minimum of 3 weeks for City review where it is

required’. A12 Refer to Section III – Revisions above.

3

4

To clarify, the City may require 3 weeks to review submissions. Note that the review period could be reduced to 2 weeks, where appropriate, depending on the version submitted.

Should you have any questions regarding this addendum contact Patricia Vasquez at 416-392-6808 or pvasque@toronto.ca. Please attach this addendum to your RFP document and be governed accordingly. Proponents must acknowledge receipt of all addenda in their Proposal in the space provided on the Proposal Submission Form as per Appendix D, of the RFP document. All other aspects of the RFP remain the same. Allison Phillips Manager Professional Services

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28