EDIT RFP 9117-18-7752 - January 22 Final - Copy · 2020. 7. 8. · BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM (BFPP) CAPACITY ASSESSEMENT STUDIES STUDY AREAS 46-61, AND 63-67 City of Toronto

January 23, 2019

NOTICE TO POTENTIAL PROPONENTS Request for Proposal No. 9117-18-7752

For: Basement Flooding Protection Program (BFPP) Capacity Assessment Studies Study Areas 46-61, and 63-67

Two-Envelope System Please review the attached document and submit your Proposal to the address noted below by the closing deadline of 12:00 noon (local Toronto time) on March 27, 2019 Proposals will not be considered unless: Received by the date and time specified above; and Received at the address specified below. Submission by facsimile or e-mail is not acceptable. Only the names of the firms submitting Proposals will be read aloud at the public opening on the date of closing. Information and/or site meeting requirements:

Required: (yes/no) Yes Attendance Requirement:

(mandatory/voluntary) Mandatory

Date: Monday, February 4, 2019 Time: 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm

Location: Metro Hall (55 John Street), 18th Floor Lake Ontario Boardroom

Deadline for Questions (must be in writing):

March 13, 2019

City Contact: Aimee Yang, Senior Corporate Buyer

Purchasing and Materials Management Division (t) 416-397-4803, (e) [email protected]

For convenience you may affix the following address label to the envelope(s) containing your submission.

--------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- COMPANY NAME:

RFP NO.: 9117-18-7752 CLOSING DEADLINE: 12:00 Noon

(local Toronto time)March 27, 2019

DELIVER TO: Chief Purchasing Officer Purchasing and Materials Management Division 18th Floor, West Tower, City Hall 100 Queen Street West Toronto, ON, M5H 2N2

The Purchasing and Materials Management Division will not be held responsible for submission documents submitted in envelope(s) that are not labelled in accordance with the above instructions.

Tenders/RFQ/RFP/Sales/Disposals are advertised on the City of Toronto Website: www.toronto.ca/purchasing

VIEWING C

OPY

BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM (BFPP) CAPACITY ASSESSEMENT STUDIES

STUDY AREAS 46-61, AND 63-67 City of Toronto RFP No. 9117-18-7752

ECS Version 1.5 October 2018 Page 1

Table of Contents

SECTION 1 GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................. 3

1.1 REFERENCES TO LABELLED PROVISIONS .................................................... 3 1.2 DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................... 3 1.3 INTERPRETATION .............................................................................................. 6 1.4 PROPOSAL PROCESS ....................................................................................... 7 1.5 MANDATORY INFORMATION MEETING ........................................................... 7 1.6 SOCIAL PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 7 1.7 GENDER DIVERSITY IN CITY PROCUREMENT ............................................... 8

SECTION 2 SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................. 9

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 9 2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 14 2.3 PROJECT ELEMENTS ...................................................................................... 18 2.4 GENERAL PROJECT REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 45 2.5 ENGINEERING STUDIES / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (EA) ............ 48 2.6 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES ....................................... 48

SUMMARY OF PROJECT SUBMISSIONS ....................................................... 65 2.8 INNOVATION AND VALUE ADDED .................................................................. 69

SECTION 3 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ............................................................................... 70

3.1 SUBMISSION OVERVIEW ................................................................................ 70 3.2 PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION ....................................................................... 70 3.3 PROPOSAL DELIVERY ..................................................................................... 71 3.4 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL CONTENT ................................................................ 71

SECTION 4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION ................................................ 82

4.1 SELECTION COMMITTEE ................................................................................ 82 4.2 SELECTION CRITERIA ..................................................................................... 82 4.3 SELECTION PROCESS .................................................................................... 85 4.4 CLARIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 86 4.5 INTERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 86 4.6 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................... 86 4.7 NEGOTIATIONS AND AGREEMENTS ............................................................. 87 4.8 CONSULTING AGREEMENTS / PURCHASE ORDERS ................................... 87 4.9 INSURANCE ...................................................................................................... 88

SECTION 5 COST OF SERVICES ........................................................................................ 89

5.1 COST OF SERVICES DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERY ............................. 89 5.2 COST OF SERVICES SUBMISSION CONTENT – GENERAL .......................... 89 5.3 BASE SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................. 91 5.4 PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCES ......................................................................... 98 5.5 PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCES ............................................................ 111 5.6 .............................................................................................. 118

ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED BY PROPONENT ......................................... 121 5.8 PAYMENTS FROM COST OF SERVICES PROPOSAL .................................. 121

VIEWING C

OPY




5.9 PAYMENTS FOR PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCES .......................................... 123 5.10 PAYMENTS FOR CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE .......................................... 123 5.11 CURRENCY ..................................................................................................... 123

TAXES ............................................................................................................. 123

SECTION 6 CITY RESPONSIBILITIES .............................................................................. 124

6.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................ 124 6.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION – CITY AS LEAD ................................................... 124

SECTION 7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 127

7.1 CURRENT STUDIES AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ...... 127 7.2 CITY REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND STANDARDS .................................. 128 7.3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ...................... 129

SECTION 8 APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 130

APPENDIX A – STANDARD PROJECT SCOPE REQUIREMENTS – Separate Attachment A.1 General Requirements A.2 Health and Safety (including Designated Substances) A.3 Approvals A.4 Drawings and Standards A.5 Class EA A.6 Studies A.7 Pre-Design

APPENDIX B - RFP PROCESS TERMS AND CONDITIONS

APPENDIX C - SUBMISSION FORMS

APPENDIX D - SPECIMEN CONTRACT AGREEMENT, INCLUDING INSURANCE FORMS

APPENDIX E - PROJECT REFERENCE MATERIAL - Separate Attachment

APPENDIX F – DIGITAL DATA RELEASE FORM

VIEWING C

OPY




SECTION 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 REFERENCES TO LABELLED PROVISIONS

1.1.1 Each reference in this Request for Proposal to a numbered or lettered “section”, ”subsection“, “paragraph, “subparagraph”, “clause” or “sub clause” shall, unless otherwise expressly indicated, be taken as a reference to the correspondingly labelled provision of this Request for Proposal (RFP).

1.2 DEFINITIONS

Throughout this Request for Proposal, unless inconsistent with the subject matter or context:

1.2.1 "Addendum" or "Addenda" means any document or documents issued by the City prior to the Closing Deadline that changes the terms of the RFP or contains additional information related to the RFP.

1.2.2 "Affiliated Person" means everyone related to the Proponent including, but not limited to employees, agents, representatives, organizations, bodies corporate, societies, companies, firms, partnerships, associations of persons, parent companies, and subsidiaries, whether partly or wholly-owned, as well as individuals, and directors, if:

a. Directly or indirectly either one controls or has the power to control the other; or

b. A third party has the power to control both.

1.2.3 "Agencies and Corporations" refer to bodies and organizations that have a direct reporting or funding relationship with the City of Toronto or Council. The list of current organization name and contact of agencies and corporations to be considered under this RFP is available from the following page on the City's website www.toronto.ca/abcc

1.2.4 “Agreement” means any written contract between the City and a Proponent, or any Purchase Order issued by the City to the Vendor, with respect to any Services contemplated by this RFP, and shall be deemed to include the terms and conditions for the provision of Services as set out in this RFP.

1.2.5 "Assignment" means the collection of Solutions that achieve the BFPP criteria when input into both the existing conditions and proposed conditions model, without negative upstream or downstream impacts, identified by the Proponent that can be packaged together for capital budget and/or design purposes.

1.2.6 "Basement Flooding Protection Program" or "BFPP" means the collection of projects and programs being funded by Toronto Water to reduce the risk of basement flooding in the City of Toronto.

1.2.7 "Basement Flooding Study Area" or "Study Area" means the geographical area to be investigated. The initial boundary provided with this RFP was delineated by the City based on the Sanitary / Combined sewer network, and outlines the general boundaries of where the investigation is to take place. As part of base scope of work for this Project, the Consultant will review the sewer and storm drainage network and determine/confirm the suitable extents of Modelling Area, which will become the revised/final Study Area.

1.2.8 "Bundle" means the geographic collection of Study Areas as specifically defined by the RFP.

1.2.9 "Chronic Basement Flooding Areas" means areas where basement flooding incidences have been reported repeatedly.

1.2.10 “City” means the City of Toronto, and may include employees hired directly by the City and/or consultants working on behalf of the City.

1.2.11 "City Contract" means the City employee(s) designated as City Contact on the Notice to Potential Proponents for all matters related to the RFP call process.

VIEWING C

OPY




1.2.12 "Conflict of Interest" ” includes, but is not limited to, any situation or circumstance where:

a. in relation to the RFP process, the Proponent has an unfair advantage or engages in conduct, directly or indirectly, that may give it an unfair advantage, including but not limited to (i) having or having access to information in the preparation of its Proposal that is confidential to the City and not available to other Proponents; (ii) communicating with any person with a view to influencing preferred treatment in the RFP process including the giving of a benefit of any kind, by or on behalf of the Proponent to anyone employed by, or otherwise connected with, the City ; or (iii) engaging in conduct that compromises or could be seen to compromise the integrity of the open and competitive RFP process and render that process non-competitive and unfair; or

b. in relation to the performance of its contractual obligations in the City contract, the Vendor’s other commitments, relationships or financial interests (i) could or could be seen to exercise an improper influence over the objective, unbiased and impartial exercise of its independent judgement; or (ii) could or could be seen to compromise, impair or be incompatible with the effective performance of its contractual obligations;

1.2.13 "Consultant" means the Vendor performing the work in accordance with the signed Agreement.

1.2.14 “Council” means City Council.

1.2.15 "Diverse Supplier" means any business or enterprise that is certified by a Supplier Certification Organization to be:

a. More than 51% (majority) owned, managed and controlled by persons belonging to an equity-seeking community; or

b. A social purpose enterprise whose primary purpose is to create social, environmental or cultural value and impact, and where more than 50% of the persons who are fulltime equivalent employees or are participating in, or have completed, transitional employment training, experience economic disadvantage.

1.2.16 "EA" mean Environmental Assessment.

1.2.17 "Executive Director" means the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services Division.

1.2.18 "Equity-seeking Community" is a group that experiences discrimination or barriers to equal opportunity, including women, Aboriginal People, persons with disabilities, newcomers/new immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, visible minorities/racialized people, and other groups the City identifies as historically underrepresented.

1.2.19 “Flooding Remediation Plan” means the comprehensive Solution to surface and basement flooding.

1.2.20 "FCS" means flow control structures, which are located primarily on the City's sanitary and combined sewers. The FCSs were constructed since the inception of the City's sewer network and thus vary significantly in type, age and conditions. Their main purpose is to limit the wet weather flow entering the City's sanitary sewers and treatment system.

1.2.21 “HST” means Harmonized Sales Tax.

1.2.22 "Large Storm Event" means a rainfall event that exceeds 40 mm of precipitation over one (1) hour.

1.2.23 “Major system” means all above ground overland flow paths and surface storages such as streets, swales, channels, ponding at low points, stormwater ponds, etc.

1.2.24 "Master Plan" means a long range plan which integrates infrastructure requirements for existing and future land use with environmental assessment principles as further defined in the Municipal Engineers Association’s (MEA) Class EA (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011) document for municipal works. At a minimum, a Master Plan that follows “Approach #2” addresses Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process.

VIEWING C

OPY




1.2.25 "Maximum Construction Cost (MCC)" means the estimated maximum cost of construction used as the basis of the fee payment for Preliminary Design Services. For bidding purposes, the value is estimated by the City and varies for each Bundle. The MCC will be revised based on the Consultant's engineering estimate. The final MCC will be based on the value stated in the final preliminary design report.

1.2.26 “MFIPPA” means the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

1.2.27 “Minor system" means the storm, sanitary, and combined sewer systems, underground conveyance and storage systems.

1.2.28 “may” and “should” used in this RFP denote permissive (not mandatory).

1.2.29 "Modelling Area" means the area that is to be modelled as part of the Project and should encompass the Overland Boundary. While a detailed node-to-node model is required within the Storm Boundary, areas beyond the Storm, but within the Overland Boundary, can be modelled either as a lumped sub-catchment or extracted from existing models, if available. Furthermore, Modelling Areas need to consider all upstream and downstream boundary conditions.

1.2.30 "Modelling Guidelines" means City of Toronto InfoWorks CS Basement Flooding Model Studies, Version 1.02 – October 2014 and Modelling Methodology for Combined Sewer Areas, June 2016.

1.2.31 “must”, “shall” and “will” used in this RFP denote imperative (mandatory), meaning Proposals not satisfying imperative (mandatory) requirements will be deemed to be noncompliant and will not be considered for contract award.

1.2.32 "Overland Boundary" means the area encompassing and extending beyond the Storm Boundary to include areas that potentially contribute overland/major system flow to the minor and/or major storm system within the Storm Boundary.

1.2.33 "Project" means the total scope of works (base and provisional items, study component and preliminary design component) for one Bundle of Study Areas, as specifically defined in the RFP. As per the Municipal Class EA documents, the term Project can have a different meaning that what is stated here. For the purpose of this RFP, all uses of the term "Project" are to be used as per the definition stated here.

1.2.34 "Project Knowledge Database System (PKDBS)" means a digital database created at the outset of the Project based on the asset data provided by the City. PKDBS will be updated by the Consultant throughout the Project based on the data collected and documents prepared.

1.2.35 “Project Manager” means main contact person at the City for all matters relating to the Project.

1.2.36 “Proponent” means a legal entity, being a person, partnership or firm that submits a Proposal in response to a formal Request for Proposal. If two or more legal entities wish to submit a Proposal as a consortium, one member of the consortium must be identified as the Proponent with whom the City may enter into an Agreement, and the other member(s) must be identified as subcontractors to that Proponent.

1.2.37 “Proposal” means an offer submitted by a Proponent in response to a formal Request for Proposal (RFP), which includes all of the documentation necessary to satisfy the submission requirements of the RFP.

1.2.38 “RFP” means this Request for Proposal package in its entirety, inclusive of all Appendices and any bulletins or Addenda that may be issued by the City.

1.2.39 “Services” means all services and deliverables to be provided by a Vendor as described in this RFP.

1.2.40 "Solution(s)" means the recommended infrastructure interventions required to achieve the City's Basement Flooding Protection Program hydraulic objectives, as defined through the study component of the Project.

VIEWING C

OPY




1.2.41 "Storm Boundary" means the area encompassing and extending beyond the Study Area to include areas where minor storm system extends beyond the Study Area.

1.2.42 "STS" mean sanitary trunk sewer.

1.2.43 "Study Area" means the area to be investigated as part of this Project. The initial boundary provided with this RFP was delineated based on the City’s GIS data of the sanitary sewer system. As part of this Project, the Vendor will determine the extents of Modelling Areas, which will become the revised Study Area. A collection of Study Areas forms a Bundle as defined in this RFP.

1.2.44 "Supplier Certification Organization" is a non-profit organization recognized by the City of Toronto that certifies businesses and enterprises as Diverse Suppliers by assessing them using established, consistent criteria. Recognized Supplier Certification Organizations include:

a. Canadian Aboriginal and Minority Supplier Council

b. Canadian Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce

c. Social Purchasing Project

d. Women Business Enterprise Canada

e. Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business

1.2.45 "Supplier Code of Conduct" means business ethical standards contained in Article 13 Chapter 195, Purchasing, of the Toronto Municipal Code.

1.2.46 "Sub-Consultant" means a separate provider of specialized engineering or technical services that may be procured by the consultant, or directly by the City.

1.2.47 "Technical Proposal" means the portion of the Proposal components that are described in Section 3.4, and does not contain pricing information.

1.2.48 "Vendor" means the successful Proponent with whom the City enters into an Agreement.

1.2.49 "Workforce Development" means a relatively wide range of activities, policies and programs to create, sustain and retain a viable workforce that can support current and future business and industry. It is an approach that integrates career exploration, industry–driven education and training, employment, and career advancement strategies, facilitated by the collaboration between employers, training and education institutions, government, and communities.

1.3 INTERPRETATION

1.3.1 In this RFP and in the Agreement, unless the context otherwise necessitates:

a. Any reference to an officer or representative of the City shall be construed to mean the person holding that office from time to time, and the designate or deputy of that person, and shall be deemed to include a reference to any person holding a successor office or the designate or deputy of that person;

b. A reference to any Act, bylaw, rule or regulation or to a provision thereof shall be deemed to include a reference to any Act, bylaw, rule or regulation or provision enacted in substitution thereof or amendment thereof;

c. All amounts are expressed in Canadian dollars and are to be secured and payable in Canadian dollars;

d. All references to time shall be deemed to be references to current time in the City;

e. A word importing only the masculine, feminine or neutral gender includes members of the other genders; and a word defined in or importing the singular number has the same meaning when used in the plural number, and vice versa;

VIEWING C

OPY




f. Any words and abbreviations which have well-known professional, technical or trade meanings, are used in accordance with such recognized meanings;

g. All accounting terms have the meaning recognized by or ascribed to those terms by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants; and

h. All index and reference numbers in the RFP or any related City documents are given for the convenience of Proponents and such must be taken only as a general guide to the items referred to. It must not be assumed that such numbering is the only reference to each item. The documents, as a whole, must be fully read in detail for each item.

1.4 PROPOSAL PROCESS

1.4.1 The process is governed by the terms and conditions in Appendix “B”.

1.5 MANDATORY INFORMATION MEETING

1.5.1 A mandatory information meeting will be held on Monday, February 4, 2019 at 1:00 pm at Metro Hall 18th Floor Lake Ontario Boardroom.

1.5.2 Interested Proponents must attend the information meeting to familiarize themselves with the Projects and ascertain the full extent of the work required. Proposals submitted by Proponents that did not attend the mandatory information meeting shall be declared informal and will not be considered. Interested proponents must attend the information meeting to familiarize themselves with the Projects and ascertain the full extent of the work required.

1.5.3 Proposals submitted by Proponents that did not attend the mandatory site information meeting shall be declared non-compliant and will not be considered.

1.5.4 Individuals attending the meeting must sign in at the meeting and clearly indicate on the sign in sheet the name of the firm they are representing.

1.5.5 Proponents must submit a completed Request for Digital Data Legal Disclaimer Form (see Appendix F) to the City at the mandatory site information meeting for the GIS dataset. Refer to Section 2.1.2 below for further information.

1.6 SOCIAL PROCUREMENT

1.6.1 The goal of the City of Toronto Social Procurement Program is to drive inclusive economic growth in Toronto by improving access to the City's supply chain for diverse suppliers and leverage employment, apprenticeship and training opportunities for people experiencing economic disadvantage, including those from equity-seeking communities. The City of Toronto expects its Proponents to embrace and support the City of Toronto Social Procurement Program and its respective goals. Social procurement creates social value for the City in addition to the delivery of efficient goods, services, and works. The City of Toronto Social Procurement Program consists of two components: Supplier Diversity and Workforce Development.

1.6.2 Supplier Diversity

a. The goal of supplier diversity is to increase the diversity of the City's supply chain by providing diverse suppliers with equitable access to competitive procurement processes.

b. In accordance with Section 1.3.2 of the City of Toronto Social Procurement Policy, points will be assigned to proponents that submit information as part of their proposal that will improve supplier diversity in the City's supply chain. See Section 3.4.5, Technical Proposal Content for more information.

1.6.3 Workforce Development

VIEWING C

OPY




a. The goal of Workforce Development (WD) is to increase the number of employment, apprenticeship and training opportunities leveraged for people experiencing economic disadvantage, including those from equity-seeking communities.

b. Proponents are being asked to submit, as part of their Proposal, a Workforce Development Plan that identifies which strategies, if any, from among the categories summarized in Section 3.4.5.j that the Proponent is committed to deliver during term of the Project, as well as details on the implementation of the Workforce Development Plan.

1.7 GENDER DIVERSITY IN CITY PROCUREMENT

1.7.1 As part of City Council's support to enhance gender diversity on boards of corporations, all corporations conducting business with the City of Toronto are encouraged to utilize an intersectional analysis to strive to have gender parity on their corporate boards.

VIEWING C

OPY




SECTION 2 SCOPE OF WORK 2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

2.1.1 INTRODUCTION

a. The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to request Proponents to submit a Proposal for the provision of engineering services for the undertaking of capacity assessment studies (study component) and preliminary design (preliminary design component) for Study Areas 46 to 61, and 63 to 67 (refer to Figure 2.1 in Appendix E) of the Basement Flooding Protection Program (BFPP).

b. The capacity assessment studies (study component) require the development of a study report, for each Study Area, that recommends Solutions to increase the capacity of municipal underground and overland drainage systems. The objective of this effort is to reduce the risk of future basement and surface flooding, by reducing the risks of flooding coming from shortfalls in the capacity of the municipal drainage systems. Each study report is to be prepared in accordance with Phase 1 of the Municipal Engineers Association's (MEA's) Municipal Class EA Process (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011). The primary focus is on the development of Schedule A/A+ Assignments.

c. Additional reports may be required, for Schedule B Assignments, to address Phase 2 of the Municipal Class EA process (Provisional Cash Allowance). Additional reports may be required, for Schedule C Assignments, to address Phase 2, 3, and 4 of the Municipal Class EA Process. These additional services, may or may not be required, and shall be undertaken in accordance with the provisional cash allowances defined by the contract.

d. It is the responsibility of the Proponent to familiarize itself with the Projects and contractual requirements of the City as described and specified in this RFP and its appendices, and to ascertain the full scope of services required for the Projects, prior to submission of its Proposal.

e. The City intends to award the Study Areas in Bundles of Study Areas rather than individually. Refer to Section 4 of this RFP for further information on the Bundles and Vendor selection criteria. The Proponent should indicate within its Proposal its ability and capacity to undertake each of the Bundles. To be considered for the award of a second Bundle, the Proponent must indicate this desire in its Proposal's letter of introduction, and demonstrate that it has sufficient resources, staffing, and InfoWorks ICM licenses to undertake more than one Bundle of Study Areas. A maximum of one (1) Proponent will be awarded a second Bundle of Study Areas.

2.1.2 BFPP BUNDLES AND STUDY AREAS

a. This RFP includes twenty-one (21) Basement Flooding Study Areas, namely those numbered 46 to 61 inclusively, and 63 to 67 inclusively. The twenty-one (21) Basement Flooding Study Areas are grouped into the following six (6) Bundles, which have been delineated primarily by sewershed of the receiving sanitary/combined trunk sewer. The Bundles and Study Areas are shown in Figure 2.1 in Appendix E.

1. Bundle A: Study Areas 48, 51, and 61

2. Bundle B: Study Areas 49, 50, 53, and 54

3. Bundle C: Study Areas 55, 58, 65, and 66

4. Bundle D: Study Areas 46 and 47

5. Bundle E: Study Areas 52, 57, and 59

6. Bundle F: Study Areas 56, 60, 63, 64, and 67

VIEWING C

OPY




b. GIS data will be made available to prospective Proponents to allow for a better understanding of the sewer infrastructure in the Study Areas and Bundles. A Request for Digital Data Legal Disclaimer Form will be provided at the mandatory site information meeting. Upon submission of this form, at the mandatory site information meeting, the City will provide instructions for how to access the City's sewer infrastructure data. A sample of the release form is provided in Appendix F.

c. The GIS data that will be provided to prospective Proponents who have submitted a completed Request for Digital Data Legal Disclaimer Form will include the datasets listed below. It is noted that the accuracy and completeness of the GIS data provided are not guaranteed.

1. Study Area boundaries

2. Municipal storm, sanitary, and combined sewers (including trunk sewers);

3. Maintenance holes;

4. Catchbasins;

5. Watercourses;

6. Outfalls;

7. Large sewer chambers;

8. Pumps and pump stations;

9. Weirs;

10. Sewer Valves; and

11. Orifices.

d. Maps showing land use designations from the Toronto Official Plan are available at the following City website: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/official-plan/official-plan-maps-copy/

e. The Study Areas referenced in this RFP are serviced by separated local sanitary and storm sewer systems, with the exception of areas 46, 47, and 51 which are also serviced by local combined sewers. The existing separated storm sewer systems were typically designed to convey a 2 to 5 year design storm, as per the engineering practice at the time, with no specific consideration of major system (overland flow) drainage design. A portion of the combined system areas within areas 46, 47, and 51 were partially separated by the former local municipalities, through the construction of storm sewers that convey surface storm runoff and thereby separates such runoff from the combined sewers. The partially-separated combined/sanitary sewers then receive only wastewater and storm runoff via underground lateral connections from private properties.

f. The following figures are included in Appendix E:

1. Figures 2.2 through 2.22 inclusive show the current Study Area boundaries and trunk sewers;

2. Figures 2.23 through 2.43 inclusive show the incidences of reported flooding under different historical storm events; and

3. Figures 2.44 through 2.64 inclusive show the City's rain gauge and historical flow monitoring locations.

g. Study Area drainage systems may be connected to the drainage systems of other Basement Flooding Study Areas (either within previously completed or on-going EA studies). The InfoWorks CS/ICM computer models for the connected Study Areas can be made available to the Consultant upon request.

VIEWING C

OPY




2.1.3 BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM

a. On August 19, 2005, the City experienced a severe storm event that resulted in the flooding of many residents’ homes, erosion in ravines and watercourses, and damage to City’s infrastructure such as roads, bridges, culverts, and sewers. Toronto Water received over 4,200 basement flooding complaints, the majority of which originated from north of Highway 401, where the storm exceeded a 100-year event with over 150 mm of rainfall recorded within a 3-hour period.

b. In 2006, under the direction of the City of Toronto Council, a Basement Flooding Work Plan (Appendix E) (now referred to as the Basement Flooding Protection Program) was initiated to develop comprehensive plans to reduce the risk of flooding in 31 areas that experienced flooding from severe storms. In 2013, City Council approved the citywide expansion of the Basement Flooding Protection Program (BFPP), which now includes 67 Study Areas. Browse the following City's web page for boundaries of all Study Areas: https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/water-environment/managing-rain-melted-snow/basement-flooding/basement-flooding-protection-program/basement-flooding-protection-program-map/

c. The Basement Flooding Protection Program incorporates an integrated approach to address basement flooding problems that focuses on reducing surface flooding, on reducing the amount of stormwater entering all sewer systems: storm, sanitary, and combined, and on ensuring that sewer systems are properly sized for flows that are directed to them. In areas prone to basement flooding, local roads often do not provide a continuous water flow route and are flat. As well, the roads have low lying areas where stormwater is trapped with no flow outlet, which can result in spilling of surface water to adjacent properties and extraneous storm flows entering the sanitary sewer system. The 2006 Work Plan, which focused on addressing chronic basement flooding areas, includes:

1. Conducting sewer inspections to identify problems in the sanitary sewer system (such as blockages) and sources of extraneous stormwater (such as deterioration in pipes and maintenance holes; and illicit catchbasin and/or roof leader connections) for corrective action;

2. Mandatory downspout disconnection in basement flooding Study Areas;

3. Undertaking engineering assessments of the “major” system, that is, the stormwater overland flow routes, to evaluate options to reduce or eliminate severe ponding of water on streets during extreme storm conditions;

4. Undertaking engineering assessments of the “minor” system, that is, the storm sewer and sanitary/combined sewer systems, to reduce stormwater inputs and identify strategies to reduce or eliminate hydraulic bottlenecks for both sewer systems to alleviate basement flooding during extreme rainstorm conditions; and,

5. A Basement Flooding Protection Subsidy Program that provides a financial subsidy to residential homes to install flood protection devices including a backwater valve, a sump pump, and pipe severance and capping of the home's storm sewer or external weeping tile connection.

VIEWING C

OPY




2.1.4 WET WEATHER FLOW MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

a. In 2003, City Council adopted a citywide Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan (WWFMP) to address the impacts of wet weather flow (WWF) on the City’s watercourses and receiving waters. The WWFMP focuses on controlling and reducing the impacts of combined sewer overflows (CSO), stormwater discharges, and Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) in the City’s sanitary/combined sewer system. The WWFMP requires a hierarchical approach to stormwater management, that is, considering source control measures first, then conveyance control measures, and then followed by end-of-pipe control measures.

b. The WWFMP was developed on a watershed basis and as such the City was divided into five (5) Study Areas and the waterfront as follows:

1. Study Area 1: The total combined sewer services area in the City of Toronto which includes areas in the former municipalities of East York, York, City of Toronto, and a portion of South West of Scarborough

2. Study Area 2: Mimico Creek and Etobicoke Creek watersheds and the Lakefront watershed in Etobicoke

3. Study Area 3: Humber River watershed area excluding the combined sewer area

4. Study Area 4: Don River watershed area excluding the combined sewer area

5. Study Area 5: Rouge River and Highland Creek watersheds and the Lakefront watershed in Scarborough excluding the combined sewer area

6. Waterfront: From Etobicoke Creek in the west to Rouge River in the East

c. The WWFMP was developed in accordance with the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (June 2000). The City completed the WWFMP using Approach #1 of the Master Planning process, in which Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process were completed, and the Master Plan was made available for public comment. The WWFMP has been used by the City as a basis for the completion of Phases 3 and 4 of site-specific Schedule B and C works recommended in WWFMP.

d. Since the adoption of the WWFMP by City Council in 2003, significant progress has been made in advancing the implementation of the WWFMP through City works, programs, and other initiatives to improve water quality in Toronto's watercourses, beaches and Lake Ontario waterfront, reduce basement flooding, protect City and private infrastructure from erosion impacts, increase public awareness of stormwater issues, and to support other WWFMP objectives. Recent progress has included the city-wide implementation of Mandatory Downspout Disconnection, the completion of Basement Flooding Environmental Assessment (EA) studies and construction of infrastructure improvements through the Basement Flooding Protection Program (BFPP), the construction and upgrade of stormwater management facilities, and the advancement of the WWFMP's most significant water quality improvement effort such as the Don River and Central Waterfront Project. Watercourse erosion and shoreline management studies and restoration works have also been completed to protect City and private infrastructure. A staff report summarized the implementation status of the City's 2003 Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (WWFMP) to the end of 2016 and highlighted implementation priorities over the next five to ten years within the WWFMP's 25 year implementation plan can be found at:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-103216.pdf

2.1.5 DON RIVER AND CENTRAL WATERFRONT PROJECT

VIEWING C

OPY




a. The Don River and Central Waterfront Municipal Class EA (also known as the Don and Waterfront Trunk Sewers and CSO Control Strategy) is a complex effort that is contributing to the goal of delisting of the Don River and Inner Harbour as a polluted Great Lakes Area of Concern while sustaining the rapid growth of Toronto efficiently and securely. Discharges from combined sewer overflows and storm sewers were identified as principal sources of pollution in the City’s 2003 Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (WWFMP), which must be controlled to reach this objective. In addition, the efficiency and security of the City’s dry weather flow collection and treatment system is a key concern. Hence the Don EA was intended to provide a comprehensive systems integration approach to incorporate the wet weather flow control works identified in Study Area 1 of the City-wide WWFMP to address discharges in the Don River (including the Taylor/Massey Creek Tributary) and the Inner Harbour with dry weather treatment and collection optimization. The intention was to build upon the results of the WWFMP to reach a cost-effective and environmentally beneficial solution to these issues.

b. In 2011, The City completed Phases 3 and 4 of the WWFMP for Don River and Central Waterfront EA study. Currently, a consultant team is undertaking preliminary and detailed design for the initiative. Detailed design includes Coxwell Bypass Tunnel, Lower Don Tunnel and Inner Harbour Tunnel. Recommendations from Class EAs in this RFP shall integrate with recommendations from the Don River and Central Waterfront EA. Browse the following City's web page for more information: https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/water-environment/managing-rain-melted-snow/what-the-city-is-doing-stormwater-management-projects/lower-don-river-taylor-massey-creek-and-inner-harbour-program/projects-of-the-lower-don-river-taylor-massey-creek-and-inner-harbour-program/

2.1.6 TORONTO WATERFRONT SANTIARY SERVICING MASTER PLAN UPDATE

a. In 2012, the City of Toronto completed the Waterfront Sanitary Servicing Master Plan Class Environmental Assessment (EA), which identified a preferred strategy to provide sanitary servicing for development along Toronto's central waterfront to 2031.

b. The City is undertaking an EA study to update the 2012 Master Plan that will identify a new preferred sanitary servicing strategy for the central waterfront taking into consideration the strong development growth along the waterfront, updated sanitary servicing needs, and recommendations from completed studies (e.g. Don River and Central Waterfront Wet Weather Flow System, the Integrated Pumping Station, Servicing Report for Lower Don Lands and Port Lands) that offer an opportunity to integrate infrastructure. Browse the following City's web page for more information: https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/public-consultations/infrastructure-projects/waterfront-sanitary-servicing-master-plan/

2.1.7 CURRENT PROGRAMS, POLICIES, STUDIES AND PROJECTS

a. The following section describes some of the related programs, policies, studies, and activities currently underway within the City. The information is made available to provide context for the studies and should be considered in the assessment of the Study Areas.

b. Information of on-going Investigations of Basement Flooding Class Environmental Assessment Studies are available in the City’s website at: https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/public-consultations/infrastructure-projects/basement-flooding-investigation-environmental-assessment-studies/

c. Information of completed Investigations of Basement Flooding Class Environmental Assessment Studies are available in the City’s website at: https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/public-consultations/infrastructure-projects/completed-basement-flooding-environmental-assessment-studies/

d. The City’s mandatory downspout disconnection by-law required roof leader disconnection in combined sewer areas, chronic basement flooding areas, and the remainder of the city by November 20, 2011, December 3, 2013, and December 3, 2016 respectively.

VIEWING C

OPY




e. To ensure the ongoing proper operation of the City's drainage systems, Toronto Water continually inspects the existing sewer systems using CCTV inspections. Problem areas are rectified through cleaning, repairing, and replacing components of the system to ensure they function as per their original design. Available CCTV camera inspection information is stored by the City using InfoNet and will be provided to the Proponent as requested.

f. A “Basement Flooding Protection Subsidy Program” is available to assist residential homeowners to install flood protection devices which include a backwater valve, sump pump, pipe surveillance and capping of weeping tile connection. For more details visit the website: https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/water-environment/managing-rain-melted-snow/basement-flooding/how-to-prevent-basement-flooding/

g. GIS-Based Hydrologic and Hydraulic Models, in InfoWorks ICM (version as of 2018), for Sanitary Trunk Sewer/Combined Sewer Systems in the City of Toronto are available for all parts of the City and they are available to consultant that is working on a City project. These models are developed or consolidated with the models developed through the Basement Flooding EA studies for the purposes of wastewater collection system capacity assessment by the City's in-house modelling team. Although the stormwater sewer networks are included in the combined sewer system area model, the details of the stormwater subcatchments and catch basins, and runoff parameters are not included in the models. No stormwater sewer networks are included in the separated sewer system area modelling.

h. The City has been using the InfoWorks CS (and updated to ICM in 2016) model for the annual CSO reporting to Environment Canada, since 2013, after the Federal Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations was enacted on July 2012 . This model was developed via the Don River and Central Waterfront Project EA study completed in 2012. In this model, areas, contributing flows to the City's combined sewer system, were modelled on a large scale with lumped drainage catchments. The model was used to determine flows contributing to the combined sewer system with pipe size greater than or equal to 750 mm dia. under dry weather and wet weather during a typical year, and the 2 and 5-year design storms.

2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

2.2.1 The following section is intended to provide the Proponent with an understanding of the specific parts of the Projects. Items not specifically listed, but required to provide fully functioning systems and to meet the intent of the City, are deemed to be included in the base scope.

a. Project Objectives

1. The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to select qualified Consultants to analyse drainage system capacities and provide infrastructure upgrade recommendations (i.e. the study component), and to prepare preliminary designs (i.e. the preliminary design component) for 21 of the City's 67 Basement Flooding Protection Program Study Areas. The 21 Study Areas have been divided to form six (6) Bundles of Study Areas.

2. The study component will be tasked with identifying Solutions to reduce basement flooding risks, and with combining the identified Solutions into a set of Assignments prior to initiating preliminary design activities.

3. Technical memos and study reports will be required to be submitted on a Study Area by Study Area basis. Each study report is to address Phase 1 of the Municipal Engineers Association's (MEA's) Municipal Class EA Process (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and 2011) along with the requirements outlined in this RFP.

VIEWING C

OPY




4. The primary focus is on the identification and development of Schedule A/A+ Assignments, and the documentation of such efforts. This focus allows the categorization of assignments (between Schedule A/A+, B, and C assignments) and hence the alignment of efforts and resources to best accelerate the implementation of Assignments. Additional reports may be required, for Schedule B Assignments, to address Phase 2 of the Municipal Class EA process (Provisional Cash Allowance). Additional reports may be required, for Schedule C Assignments, to address Phase 2, 3, and 4 of the Municipal Class EA Process. These additional services, may or may not be required, and shall be undertaken in accordance with the provisional cash allowances defined by the contract.

5. BFPP studies shall focus on identifying infrastructure upgrades that will reduce the risk of basement and surface flooding by recognizing and accommodating existing and extreme storm event flow conditions. The studies shall identify capacity shortfalls within the City's drainage systems, and shall recommend City sewer system improvements to prevent municipal sewer systems from surcharging into private properties. The Solutions recommended by the BFFP studies shall be limited to improvements of the municipally owned drainage systems (i.e. the City of Toronto), and not those on private property, as the City does not have control and/or jurisdiction on private property.

6. BFPP studies play a role in protecting downstream systems (i.e., sanitary/combined trunk sewers) from increased wet weather flows. BFPP Assignments and Solutions shall ensure that peak flow rates to downstream sanitary and/or combined trunk sewers will not be increased under wet weather conditions. Ideally, this should be achieved at downstream discharge points; but (if necessary) it can also be achieved at the downstream end of a trunk sewer as it exits a BFPP EA Study Area. The comparison of peak flow rates shall be undertaken using a consistent population.

7. The “enhanced level of protection" as defined in the 2006 Work Plan for the BFPP (Appendix E) adopted by City Council in April 2006 is summarised below:

a) Sanitary Sewer System. Adopt a storm event equivalent to the May 12, 2000 storm as the enhanced level of protection against basement flooding from sanitary sewer backup in areas of the City experiencing chronic basement flooding.

b) Storm Drainage System. The 100-year storm be adopted for the City of Toronto as the level of protection, where feasible, against surface flooding from ponding on the street, in areas of the City experiencing chronic basement flooding, where a proper major (overland flow) stormwater drainage system does not exist.

8. The "targeted level of service" for the Projects is summarized below. This level of service expectation shall be reviewed and confirmed at the Project Initiation Meetings:

a) Sanitary Sewer System. The maximum hydraulic grade line (HGL) of the sanitary system shall be maintained below basement elevations (assume 1.8 m below the ground elevation) during a storm event equivalent to the May 12, 2000 storm as gauged at the City’s Oriole Yard located at Sheppard Avenue and Leslie Street. This design standard provides an enhanced level of protection against basement flooding from sanitary sewer backup for a storm event with a return frequency between one in 25 to one in 50 years. The May 12, 2000 storm event, gauged at Oriole Yard, is defined in the City's InfoWorks Modelling Guidelines document (version 1.02).

b) Sanitary Trunk Sewer System. No increase in wet weather peak flows to the receiving sanitary trunk sewer(s) are allowed, as a result of recommended BFPP Solutions. This can be determined at individual discharge points or collectively within the Study Area for multiple discharge points to a common trunk sewer.

VIEWING C

OPY




c) Storm Sewer System. The maximum HGL in the storm sewer (minor) system shall be maintained below basement elevations (assume 1.8 m below the ground elevation) during the 100-year design storm. The 100-year design storm is defined by the City's Infoworks Modelling Guidelines document version 1.02.

d) Combined Sewer System. The maximum HGL in the combined sewer (minor) system shall be maintained below basement elevations (assume 1.8 m below the ground elevation) during the 100-year design storm. The 100-year design storm is defined by the City's Infoworks Modelling Guidelines document version 1.02. Where any changes to the combined sewers are proposed, both the MOECP Procedure F-5-5 criteria must be met and combined sewer overflows shall not be increased. Where the staging of Solutions implementation will influence either meeting or not meeting this requirement, this must be explicitly stated as part of the recommended Solutions.

e) Shallow (Storm/Combined) Sewer Systems. Shallow sewers are defined as having obverts less than 1.8 m depth below the ground elevation. The required level of protection for shallow sewer systems, regardless of connection status to private properties, shall be no-surcharge conditions during a 100-year storm event with the proposed HGL during the 100-year storm event being less or equal to the existing condition HGL.

f) Local Road Surface Flows. The maximum depth of ponding shall be the lesser of 150 mm above the crown of road or the water level up to the right-of-way limit during the 100-year storm event (Wet Weather Flow Management Guidelines November 2006). For example, for a 20 m wide Right of Way (ROW) with a road width of 8.5 m, the criterion for overland flow depth at the gutter would be 235 mm (2% cross slope). The Vendor shall be responsible for investigating and determining the roadway and ROW widths and calculating the maximum allowable depth of ponding accordingly.

g) Collector Road Surface Flows. The maximum depth of flow shall be the lesser of 100 mm above the crown of the road or the water level up to the right-of-way limit during the 100-year storm event. The Vendor shall be responsible for investigating and determining the roadway and ROW widths and calculating the maximum allowable depth of ponding accordingly.

h) Arterial Road Surface Flows. The maximum depth of flow is the crown of the road during the 100-year storm event. The Vendor shall be responsible for investigating and determining the roadway and ROW widths and calculating the maximum allowable depth of ponding accordingly.

i) Roads with reverse sloped driveways. The overland flow depth shall be maintained at 150 mm at the curb (65 mm at the crown of the road for an 8.5 m wide road). The Vendor shall be responsible for investigating and determining the roadway and ROW widths and calculating the maximum allowable depth of ponding accordingly.

j) Overland Flow Velocity. Velocities in overland flow channels shall be minimized as the force of moving water on objects increases with the square of velocity for publicly accessible flow routes, the velocities and depths of flow for the major overland flow systems should not exceed the combinations outlined in the table below. The table below lists the approximated flow depths that a child (20 kg) would be able to withstand while standing in a concrete-lined channel or gutter flow flowing at the selected velocities. Toronto Water must approve values outside of these limits.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 2.1 Permissible Flow Depths

Permissible Flow Depth for Submerged Objects

Water Velocity (m/s) Permissible Flow Depth (m)

2.0 0.21

3.0 0.09

9. The Consultant shall familiarize themselves with the City's 2003 WWFMP. It may be more cost-effective to construct storage facilities to address both basement flooding concerns and the long-term WWFMP objectives for improving water quality in receiving watercourses than just constructing BFPP Solutions. The Consultant shall investigate opportunities to integrate water quality treatment into basement flooding remediation storage Solutions.

10. The Consultant shall undertake flow monitoring, and if appropriate, rainfall monitoring, in parallel with the study component efforts. The results of this effort are to be documented in a technical memo. If a Large Storm Event (i.e. >40 mm in hour) is observed, the Consultant may be requested to undertake a model calibration effort during the preliminary design component.

11. The Consultant shall develop the preliminary design scope of works for Assignments, and shall determine the relative priority of completion for each Assignment. The development of the scope of works shall consider planned capital works within the vicinity of the BFPP Assignments. For each Assignment, scope management documents, which include the above information, shall be prepared.

12. The Consultant shall undertake the study component and submit a Study Report for each Study Area.

13. The Consultant shall prepare preliminary designs and preliminary design reports for recommended Assignments arising from the study component of their Project(s). The purpose of including preliminary design, in the scope of this RFP, is to reduce the time required before the construction of Assignments can begin. This will be accomplished by allowing constructability reviews and design efforts to begin much sooner after the determination of needed Assignments, and by keeping the same firm involved in both the identification of Assignments and the demonstration of their constructability.

b. Project Schedule

1. Schedule is a primary driver of the City's Basement Flooding Protection Program. Changes have been included in this RFP, as compared with previous BFPP EA study RFPs, to reflect the importance of the schedule. The primary goal is to upgrade infrastructure as quickly as possible, and the completion of the Projects identified in this RFP contribute to this goal. The approximate timeline for each Project is expected to be 42 months (including study and pre-design components). This is only the City’s suggested timeline. If the Proponent considers the timeline too short or too long, identify this in your Proposal. Within the Proposal, the Proponent is responsible for identifying a timeline that it is committed to accomplishing.

VIEWING C

OPY




2. At the kick-off meeting, the Proponent will provide an updated schedule, which respects the schedule submitted with their Proposal (see Section 3.4.7 for schedule requirements). This schedule will be used to establish the Study Area baseline schedule to the submission of Technical Memo #1 (TM#1). With the final submission of TM#1, the Proponent will update the schedule and provide a formal baseline schedule as a deliverable. The dates outlined in the formal baseline schedule must be achievable and must reflect an understanding of schedule pressures on the City to complete infrastructure upgrades.

3. The objective of delivering the study component and the preliminary design component together is to reduce the amount of time required to begin the detailed design and construction of Assignments, by eliminating the consultant transition period between the study and the preliminary design phases. This results in the project schedule being accelerated through a combination of timely completion of the study component and with initiation of the preliminary design component shortly after Assignments are identified. The preliminary design component is carried as a provisional item in this RFP. If the Consultant fails to meet its baseline schedule for the study component, the City may choose not to proceed with the preliminary design component.

2.3 PROJECT ELEMENTS

2.3.1 OF REQUIREMENTS

a. This section provides the Proponents with a summary of the main tasks that are required. The project consists of two main components – the study component and the preliminary design component. The study component is included as base scope of work, while preliminary design is included as a provisional item due to uncertainties associated with Assignments that may result from the Study. It is the City's intention to undertake the preliminary design component, provided the study component is delivered successfully and on time.

b. The Consultant shall provide quarterly performance reports. These reports shall identify task schedule variances, and a change request summary (i.e. status and schedule details) during the course of the Project. The detailed reporting format will be discussed and finalized at the beginning of the Project.

c. Items listed in this sub-section summarize the requirements of the study component of the Project.

1. Prepare Technical Memorandum #1 that includes the major activities listed below.

a) Collect and review the essential relevant information and data available from public records and City/TRCA and other authority records/as-built drawings including previous studies, investigations, analyses and reports.

b) Refine Study Area boundaries based on collected data/information, especially on existing minor and major drainage systems and related infrastructure data. The refined boundary of each Project Area and Study Areas shall be used for all subsequent activities.

c) Develop a Project Knowledge Database System (PKDBS) to organize and manage all study information/data/knowledge and results in an effective fashion. The PKDBS shall include a geodatabase containing all spatially referenced data using formatting consistent with City geodatabase requirements (See Appendix E.3).

d) Review the existing flow monitoring and rain gauge data (if available) to determine if any rain events larger than 40 mm in one hour have been captured.

e) Undertake Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Assessment to support the development of the computer model analyses and for the evaluation of Solutions.

VIEWING C

OPY




f) Identify Flood Clusters, within the Study Areas, by undertaking a ramped analysis of the storm, sanitary, and combined (if applicable) systems, the overland sink fill analysis, historically reported flooding, and the basement flooding questionnaire results. A basic model build would need to be undertaken to perform the ramped analysis.

g) Propose field survey(s) and/or additional data collection for the flood clusters and associated sewersheds. The intention is for the Proponent to collect field information to provide better model resolution in problem areas, and sewershed insights.

h) Propose and implement a flow monitoring program for the flood clusters. The intention is to have the flow monitors in place for the duration of the study to attempt capturing an extreme storm event. This task shall be independent from the other tasks of each Project and the data will only be used for calibration / validation if a Large Storm Event is captured during the Project.

i) Determine, summarize and categorize the cause(s) of basement flooding and surface flooding; identify the mechanism(s) by which water enters the basements and/or private properties. The Consultant is required to meet with Toronto Water District Operations staff to understand operational characteristics and to validate the interpretation noted above.


a) Undertake the field survey and additional data collection per the work plan developed as part of TM#1.

b) The Basement Flooding Protection Program's hydrologic and hydraulic models, in previous EA studies, have been calibrated to available flow monitoring data. Due to the statistical unlikelihood of an extreme event occurring during the relatively short monitoring period of the study, in recognition of the program's focus on the drainage system's performance during extreme events, and as part of the effort to reduce the duration of BFPP studies, the requirement to calibrate the model to available flow monitoring data has been changed for this study.

c) The Consultant shall develop the hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) computer simulation model for the storm sewer system (minor system), overland flow drainage system (major system), and the sanitary and combined sewer system, using the InfoWorks ICM model, in accordance with Sections 2.3.10 and 2.3.11. We weather flow model calibration against flow monitoring data is not envisaged as part of the study component of the Project. The results of the models shall be verified against basement flooding records. The consultant shall use the H&H model for analyzing the performance of the storm, sanitary and combined sewer systems and overland flow drainage system.

d) The modelling approach should closely follow the City of Toronto “InfoWorks Basement Flooding Model Studies Guidelines” and “Modelling Methodology for Combined Sewer Areas” provided in this RFP (Appendix E). . If any sections of this RFP contradict any sections in the Modelling Guidelines, the requirements outlined in the RFP shall govern.

e) The Consultant shall determine and recommend if there are locations in their Project Area(s) where 2D modelling with InfoWorks ICM (full version, not ICM SE) can improve accuracy and/or shorten the study schedule.

f) The Consultant shall document the existing condition sewer and surface drainage performance level for each node. This information should be added to the PKDBS as a geodatabase, in accordance with Toronto Water geodatabase data formats.


VIEWING C

OPY




a) Develop and evaluate all reasonable Solutions and ensure that recommended Solutions are technically feasible and implementable in terms of constructability and land ownership and/or easement needs. Recommended Solutions shall be derived considering future population conditions (projected 2041 population and approved future developments).

b) For the sanitary and combined sewer systems, apply the model with 1991 typical year rainfall to perform continuous simulation modelling to assess CSO impact, as per MOECP F-5-5, under existing condition and preferred Solutions condition.

c) Prepare a constructability report as part of TM#3 for the developed Solutions. The report should be prepared by the preliminary engineering team (i.e. not the team undertaking the study component). The report shall confirm constructability, functionality, and feasibility of the proposed Solutions based on the information available at this point. The report shall also identify risks associated with implementing the proposed Solutions, such as schedule risks, impact on public, permitting, land acquisition, and others.

d) Undertake Stage 1 Archeological and Cultural heritage investigation for the Study Areas.

e) Prepare cost estimates for all recommended Solutions and Assignments using the Cost Estimating Tool.


a) The objective of this task is to develop the scope for preliminary design Assignments and determine the relative priority for completing the preliminary design of Assignments.

b) Through two workshops with City staff, the Consultant will review the TM#3 recommended Solutions and determine the bundling of Solutions to create Basement Flooding Protection Program (BFPP) Assignments. At a minimum, the Assignments will include all the hydraulically connected Solutions that are needed to be implemented together to achieve the BFPP criteria when input into both the existing conditions and proposed conditions model, without negative upstream or downstream impacts. For each Assignment, identify the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Schedule (i.e., A, A+, B or C).

I. For any BFPP Assignments that are identified as Schedule B or C, outline the scope of work and estimate the associated effort for the additional tasks needed to satisfy the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment requirements. Provisional Cash Allowances have been allocated to undertake Schedule B and Schedule C activities.

II. The Consultant will confirm the cost estimates developed in TM#3 and apply the methodology for calculating the cost per benefitting property for BFPP Assignments as provided in Appendix E of this RFP.

c) As part of the cost per benefitting property (CPBP) analysis, the Consultant will prepare cost-benefit tables, ArcGIS geodatabase shape files, and figures to show the locations of the BFPP Assignments including an identification number, type of improvement/control, function(s), estimated cost, number of properties benefitted, cost-benefit per property, and the delineated benefiting area for each BFPP Assignment.

VIEWING C

OPY




d) The development of the preliminary design scope will take into consideration the BFPP Assignment, coincident other works in the City Capital Plan geodatabase, and Consultant identified state of good repair (SOGR) works (e.g., the latter two items being defined as additional works). To this end, the Consultant will review the City 5 year Capital Plan geodatabase files covering planned watermain rehabilitations and replacements, sewer rehabilitations and replacements, manhole rehabilitations and replacements, and green infrastructure installations. As well, available CCTV reports will be reviewed for 200 m downstream of the BFPP Assignments and the Consultant will identify SOGR works based on cross-sectional area loss that is equal to or greater than 10%.

e) The Consultant will determine a priority matrix to be reviewed and approved by the City with consideration of the following minimum criteria, CPBP (with lowest CPBP being high priority), EA schedule (with Schedule A/A+ being high priority), constructability risk, overall capital cost, operational and maintenance requirements, and coordination with other capital works and plans.

f) Using the priority matrix, the Consultant will evaluate each BFPP Assignment and determine the relative priority for preliminary design services.

5. Items listed in this sub-section summarize the requirements of the preliminary design component of this Project. Appendix E.8 contains sample linear works checklists that are expected to be used by the Consultant to document the various activities completed as part of preliminary design. The Consultant is expected to update this checklist to suit the needs of this Project.

a) Undertake a data collection exercise, including the following activities:

I. Gather and review all relevant information available from public records and City/MTO/other authority records or as-built drawings including previous studies, investigations, analysis and reports, including the list of information listed in Section 2.6.3.b.3. The Consultant is responsible for gathering all the data from the various City sources and reviewing it for accuracy.

II. Undertake a Field Survey for each Assignment as detailed in Section 2.3.7 and Appendix A.7.

III. Request, review and rationalize utility records from the City and Utility Companies. IV. Develop the scope of work for a full geotechnical and/or hydrogeological

investigations as detailed in Section 2.6.3.k and Appendix A.7 and submit to City for approval. Undertake the geotechnical investigation and attach the geotechnical report to each PDR. Use the findings of the investigation to confirm the design.

V. Develop the required scope of work for the necessary engineering survey and SUE Level B. Undertake these surveys and submit the associated deliverables. Use the results of these surveys to update the models and base-plans for the drawings.

VI. Develop the required scope of work for the necessary tree survey. Undertake the survey and submit the associated deliverables. Use the results of these surveys to update the models and base-plans for the drawings.

VII. Where the Study has identified a cultural heritage impact, the Consultant will be required to coordinate and oversee Cultural Heritage Resource assessments within City of Toronto heritage properties, archaeological sites, and lands of archaeological potential.

b) Review and analyse rainfall and flow monitoring data collected during the study component of the Project and prepare Technical Memo #5.

VIEWING C

OPY




c) The Consultant is expected to carry out additional modelling during preliminary design as follows:

I. To address any changes in the design and construction requirements based on the results of the surveys, constructability issues and / or input from review/approval agencies and other stakeholders.

II. To analyze and recommend staging/sequencing for Assignments III. To further develop the preliminary catchbasin control concepts and to define the

exact locations, flow rates, and type of control for each of the related catchbasins. IV. Complete a sensitivity analysis on the basement flooding solution by applying an

additional factor of 10% to each time step of the relevant hyetograph (e.g. the peak intensity of the May 12, 2000 storm is 160.8 mm/hr, increasing that by 10% would be 176.9 mm/hr etc.) used to size the infrastructure (i.e. May 12, 2000 for sanitary works and the 100 year storm for storm system works). If the HGL is sensitive to the change, the Consultant shall recommend whether the pipe size should be increased as a factor of safety against uncertainty.

V. If a storm with a 1 hour rainfall accumulation of 40 mm or greater was captured during the flow monitoring period (either within the available data provided at the onset of the project, or as collected through the Project efforts), and if the measured I/I rate was greater than 3 L/s/ha in the sanitary sewer, use the flow monitoring data to calibrate the model. If the measured I/I rate was less than 3 L/s/ha, no calibration is necessary. This task will be paid for as a provisional item (see Section 5).

d) Prepare preliminary design report(s) as described in Sections 2.6 and 2.7, and in Appendix A.7. The Consultant is expected to prepare approximately three PDRs per Study Area. Dependent upon the sizing of individual Assignments, each PDR may contain multiple Schedule A/A+ Assignments.

I. Coordination with stakeholders to establish a coordinated scope. This coordination effort is limited to Toronto Water's and Transportation Services approved capital programs (i.e. watermain and sewer rehabilitation and replacement capital plans, and road resurfacing or reconstruction capital plans) within the extents of basement flooding Assignments only.

II. Complete and submit a preliminary design package, including 30% design drawings that meet requirements outlined in the "Design Drawing Submission Requirements Checklist" included in Appendix E.8.

III. Prepare cost estimates for the basement flooding protection program as well as all other state of good repair work components, using the Cost Estimating Tool provided by the City.

IV. Confirm and update the cost per benefitting property calculations. V. Identify required infrastructure relocations/impacts including, but not limited to,

existing watermains, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, forcemains, laterals, etc., as well as the other non-City utilities, including, but not limited to, Toronto Hydro cables and ductbanks, natural gas lines, Bell Telephone pedestals and conduits, fibre optics or other telecom lines, etc.

VI. Confirm constructability. VII. Design of green infrastructure, such as bio-retention, for suitable areas, within the

Assignments extents. VIII. Refinement of the solution based on constructability and cost effectiveness. IX. Identification of Approvals/Permitting requirements. X. Compliance with the minimum milestone expectations identified in Appendix A.7.

VIEWING C

OPY




XI. QA/QC, ensure all submissions are checked for completion and accuracy. XII. Update the Assignment Scope Summary Document created as part of the TM#4

portion of the Study.

2.3.2 DATA (TM#1)

a. The Consultant is to collect the data outlined in Table 2.2 for the whole Study Area, as well as any other data relevant to each specific Study Area. The purpose of this data collection exercise is to enable the preliminary assessment / flood cluster identification that is described in Section 2.3.5. Once flood cluster are identified and documented, additional data collection will take place for the flood clusters, as described in Section 2.3.8.

b. In support of making information more accessible to the public, the City developed an Open Data Portal. The Consultant shall search and obtain required data directly from the Open Data Portal. Some of the relevant datasets that are available through the Open Data Portal are identified in Table 2.2.

c. All available data can be obtained from the City’s Engineering and Construction Services Division, Building Services Division, Planning Division, Geospatial Competence Centre, Toronto Water Division and Open Data Portal. City staff resources are scarce with respect to the availability to search, retrieve, and collect existing information from the various City Divisions/Sections and locations. The Consultant shall include in the base scope of work, effort to contact City staff of relevant Divisions, search through City logs and archives to retrieve this information from the respective City locations and City Divisions, and clarify questions with the respective City Divisions directly. It is the Consultant's responsibility to review and ensure that the provided data in Table 2.2 are accurate, up-to-date, complete, and appropriate for the purpose of each Project.

d. The Consultant shall develop a Project Knowledge Database System (PKDBS) to organize and manage all study information/data/knowledge and results in an effective fashion so that the following goals can be achieved:

1. Organize and manage all information/data/knowledge in one entity;

2. Enable the identification of flood clusters through the undertaking of a ramped analysis of the storm, sanitary, and combined (if applicable) systems, an overland sink/fill analysis, historically reported flooding, and basement flooding questionnaire results.

3. Ensure regular and timely transfer of draft and final TM's and reports to the City.

e. Elevations, such as pipe inverts and ground surface, for older sewer network data may NOT be geodetic. The Consultant shall convert non-geodetic data to geodetic data as base scope of work according to Figure 5 in Appendix E.1. Assume 10% of sewer network older than 1968 is non-geodetic and needs to be updated.

f. Sewers in the City's sewer network database were classified in eight (8) types: COMB, CSO, DUAL, FD, SAN, SCSO, SSO and STM. To reflect partially separated sewers in the Modelling Area, the consultant shall further distinguish road storm sewer from storm sewer, and partially combined sewer from combined sewer, by adding new classifications in the sewer network database. Corresponding sewer connections, i.e. lateral connections to the City's sewers, for all sewer types must be reflected in the hydrologic & hydraulics (H&H) model. If sewer connections cannot be verified by data collection and field survey, and by the investigation program, the determination of sewer connection types will be based on typical past building practices and engineering judgement of the Consultant.

VIEWING C

OPY




g. The Consultant shall obtain Hansen (TW's Work Order System) records, both historical reported basement/surface flooding records and other records that may assist in understanding cause(s) of flooding, from the City, and review the details including the investigation "comments/logs" and/or follow-up actions from the records. Records to be reviewed shall not be limited to just the reported flooding records related to extreme rain events.

h. The City will provide four elevation datasets to the Consultant for use in their Project. They are digital surface model (DSM), digital elevation model (DEM), hillshade, and contours. The elevation products were generated from LiDAR data. Above ground LiDAR is collected from an aircraft mounted sensor that emits thousands of lasers a second which records elevation information. Elevation datasets are generated from the raw LiDAR data through various forms of data processing. Specifications are as follows:

1. The LiDAR dataset was derived from the Airborne Imaging LiDAR data library.

a) Acquired: May 2015 b) Density: 10 points/sq. metre c) LiDAR system: Leica ALS70 d) Horizontal accuracy: +/- 10cm e) Vertical accuracy: +/- 20cm

2. Digital surface model (DSM) - consists of both ground and above ground features, such as trees, buildings, and poles

a) Pixel size: 1 metre b) Bit depth: 32 bit c) Format: GeoTiff

3. Digital elevation model (DEM) - it is a representation of the bare earth with above ground features removed


4. Hillshade - Derived from the LiDAR data, a hillshade is a visual representation of how the terrain appears to the human eye. A hillshade is simulated by placing the sun at a 45° angle and at a 315° azimuth angle. Bare earth and full feature hillshades are available


5. Contours - Derived from the LiDAR data, contours are linear features showing the change of ground height. Each line, or interval, consists of a value representing the elevation above sea level

a) Intervals: 50 centimetre b) Geometry: line c) Format: Shapefile

i. The Consultant shall confirm and revise the data should there be any uncertainty on the data provided by the City during the data collection task or at any time during the Project. Updates or modifications to the data must be documented, input into the PKDBS and in tabular format, reported to the City in Technical Memo (TM) #1 or TM#1 amendments.

VIEWING C

OPY




j. The City’s sewer network inventory database is generally 85% complete. The Consultant is responsible to document and fill in any data gaps that are critical for modelling by using as-built plans and profiles, conduct field inspection and survey, and/or make reasonable assumptions. All assumptions are to be developed in consultation with the City and documented in TM#1.

k. The exact contributing drainage areas for the storm drainage and sanitary/combined sewer systems may extend beyond the Project Area boundary shown in the figures provided in this RFP. It is the Consultant's responsibility to identify and confirm this information, and to include the external drainage areas (Study Area plus external area boundaries) when developing models for the sewer systems and surface flow drainage systems.

l. The following is a sample list of figures to be included in TM#1 to illustrate the data collection task:

1. Map of the Bundle and Study Areas

2. Land Use Classification

3. Existing and Projected Population Data

4. Water Usage Records

5. Sanitary and Combined Sewer System and Size Summary

6. Storm Sewer System and Size Summary

7. Shallow Sanitary/Combined Sewers

8. Shallow Storm Sewers

9. Ortho Photography

10. Digital Elevation Model Topography

11. Overland Road Flow Network and Directions

12. Overland Flow Low Points & Ponding Locations

13. Historic Flooding Locations

14. Sewer Flushing Areas/Locations (Hotspots)

15. CCTV Sanitary/Storm/Combined System Inspections & Rank

16. Historic Watercourses and TRCA Regulation Limit

17. Sanitary Improvement Works

18. Storm Improvement Works

19. New and Planned Developments

20. Service Connection (Drain Card) Records

21. Storm Sewer Age, Material, Pipe Slope, Velocity, Condition Rank, Sewer Flushing Composite

22. Sanitary/Combined Sewer Age, Material, Pipe Slope, Velocity, Condition Rank, Sewer Flushing Composite

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 2.2 - Data Collection Summary

Description Data Provider/Link

G1-1 Land use classification based on Zoning By-law 569-2013 Open Data Portal

G1-2 Water Consumption/Billing Records TW WAP

G1-3 Current Population and Projected Population level for 2041

City Planning

G1-4 Physical Sewer Network Data, including City catchbasin locations. Plan and Profile drawings. Structure details drawings.

TW

ECS

G1-5 Ortho imagery GCC/Open Data Portal

G1-6 LiDAR derived elevation products - digital surface model (DSM), digital elevation model (DEM), hillshade, and contours

GCC

G1-7 Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) Open Data Portal

G1-8 Flood Reporting Note by Toronto Water Districts TW

G1-9 Historical Basement Flooding Complaints (Hansen Records & ESRI Geodatabase)

TW DO

G1-10 Previous and Present Studies Various

G1-11 Historical Operation/ Maintenance records TW O&M

G1-12 Sewer design criteria at the time of construction Various

G1-13 Former natural surface water drainage pattern and paths (presence of former watercourses in the subwatershed)

Various

G1-14 Geotechnical reports for groundwater and soil conditions Various

G1-15 Improvement & rehabilitations works built or planned in the drainage and sewer systems

TW

G1-16 New and planned developments in the Study Area City Planning

G1-17 Exemption records and/or survey records from the City’s Downspout Disconnection Program

TW BOM

G1-18 Floodplain mapping and models from Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

TRCA

G1-19 CCTV Reports and Videos TW SAP (InfoNet DB) VIEWING C

OPY




a. The City maintains a network of rainfall monitoring gauges across the City. The City's rain gauge locations are shown in Figures 2.44 to 2.64 inclusive in Appendix E.

b. In 2015, 2017, and 2018, the City collected sewer flow data at select monitoring sites in the local sewer systems in some of the Study Areas in this RFP. Table 2.3 lists the Bundles, Study Areas, year of local sewer flow monitoring data availability, and the total number of flow monitors for the each Study Area monitored. The City also has an ongoing rainfall and flow monitoring program that collects flow data in its trunk sewer system. The City’s flow monitoring locations are shown in Figures 2.44 to 2.64 inclusive in Appendix E.

Table 2.3 – Local Sewer Flow Monitoring Data Availability

Bundle Study Area Year in which Local Sewer System Flow

Monitoring was collected

Number of Total Flow Monitors

A 48 2015 33

51 2018 43

B

49 2017 53

50 2017 22

53 2018 32

C 55 2017 2

58 2017 1

D 46 2017 22

47 2017 25

E 52 2018 38

c. For the Study Areas listed in Table 2.3, the base scope shall include the review and analysis of flow monitoring for data quality (e.g., depth and velocity plots, shape, pattern, trend, scatter plots, etc.) for analyzing dry and wet weather flow characteristics. Rainfall and flow monitoring data and associated reports available to the City will be provided to the Consultant. The rainfall and flow monitoring data have not been reviewed by the City.

d. For the Study Areas listed in Table 2.3, the Consultant shall include in TM#1 plots of all of the flow monitoring data collected in time versus depth, velocity, and flow, and scatter plots of velocity versus depth to show that the data collected are of good quality. TM#1 shall include an evaluation of the monitor performance and suitability of results for model calibration based on the minimum criteria for calibration consideration as defined in Section 2.6.5.f. Tasks for preparation of TM#1 shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. Review and analyze data for quality/adequacy/suitability for calibration;

2. Select and characterize the storm events that create surface and basement flooding (e.g. rainfall and runoff volumes, volumetric runoff coefficient, etc.);

3. Select and analyze the dry weather and wet weather characteristics and flow rates in each Study Area for the storm, sanitary, combined sewer systems (e.g. tributary area, land use mix, 24-hour 7-day diurnal patterns, residential and commercial wastewater production rates, seasonal and inter-event base flows, slow and fast response inflow and infiltration characteristics, mass continuity of flows measured, data consistency, volumetric runoff coefficients for each rain event, and comparison with typical values);

VIEWING C

OPY




4. Prepare tables that summarize the sanitary flows characteristics under dry and wet weather conditions: contributing area and land use mix, residential and commercial/institutional populations, wastewater production rates (in litres per capita per day), comparison with water consumption rates (in litres per capita per day), base flows (in litres per hectare) accounting for constant base wastewater flow, inflow/infiltration rates under dry and wet weather conditions (in litres per hectare), comparison with typical I/I values, etc.;

5. Identify locations/subcatchments with high Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) source(s) in the sanitary sewer system using the rain and flow monitoring data;

6. Prepare tables that summarize the storm flows characteristics under dry and wet weather conditions: contributing area and land use mix, dry weather base flows, wet weather volumetric runoff coefficients, comparison with typical storm sewer runoff values; and

7. Identify and recommend for model calibration and verification if a storm event meeting the calibration criteria defined above was recorded, and the associated rainfall and flow data is determined to be of suitable quality.

As part of TM#1 and further described in Section 2.3.5, the Consultant will identify flood clusters that are inherently at a greater risk of flooding due to drainage system configuration. For the flood clusters within the Study Areas listed in Table 2.3, the City’s available rainfall and flow monitoring data may not satisfy the model calibration storm event requirement and/or may not be aligned with the location of the flood clusters. Furthermore, the Study Areas in this RFP that are not listed in Table 2.3 do not have available sewer flow monitoring data. For the Study Area(s) that meets either of these conditions, the Consultant shall prepare and submit a rainfall and flow monitoring plan tailored to such Study Area(s) upon completing the review of the rain and flow monitoring data provided by the City. The requirements of the rainfall and flow monitoring plan are described in Section 2.3.6 below. Note that some areas may require specific traffic control plans and/or time of day restriction to undertake this task.

a. The Consultant shall review available historic soil and borehole and groundwater data to support the development of the computer model analyses and for the evaluation of Solutions, that is:

1. Identify areas within the Study Areas that have sewers located below the groundwater table and may therefore be subject to increased inflow and infiltration. Where such conditions are believed to have contributed to basement flooding, the Consultant shall propose the installation of a flow monitor, as described in Section 2.3.6.

2. If existing flow monitoring data is available, review the areas where sewers are believed to be below the groundwater table to determine if they are subject to excess inflow/infiltration.

3. Provide the background information to facilitate the following activities:

a) Evaluate suitability of flood control Solutions such as detention ponds, underground storage, and tunnels as part of TM#3 preparation.

b) Develop a geotechnical workplan to be undertaken as part of preliminary design component.

c) Help guide the selection and location of potential green infrastructure, such as infiltration/exfiltration facilities during the preliminary design component.

VIEWING C

OPY




b. The following is a sample list of figures to be included in TM#1 to illustrate the subsurface soil and groundwater assessment task:

1. Surficial Geology

2. Groundwater Contours

3. Groundwater Depth Interaction with Storm Sewers

4. Groundwater Depth Interaction with Sanitary Sewers

5. Groundwater Depth Interaction with Combined Sewers

c. Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Assessment for each Study Area shall be submitted as part of Technical Memorandum (TM #1). The submission shall include the submission of ArcGIS files as per City formatting requirements.

a. The purpose of this section within TM1 is to undertake a high-level risk analysis of the Study Area to identify flooding clusters, which will require additional data collection and field survey. The suggested tools for this risk analysis are:

1. Ramped analysis of the storm and sanitary/combined sewer systems to identify the bottlenecks in the system.

2. Overland drainage system analysis using LIDAR data to identify sinks and low points.

3. Historical basement flooding reports and associated Hansen data and notes (where available).

4. Basement Flooding resident questionnaire and resident interviews.

b. In order to undertake the ramped analysis, it is expected that the Consultant assemble a simplified model for the sole purpose of identifying bottlenecks in any of the sewer systems. The City's Modelling Guidelines do not need to be followed for the model developed to identify flood clusters in TM1.

c. A GIS exercise should be undertaken to determine where overland flow is likely to collect and encroach on private property during extreme rainfall events, as well as identify spill points from public Right-of-Way through private property.

d. Substantiate the cause of flooding through notes and problem descriptions in Hansen reports. The purpose of this task is to determine whether cause(s) of flooding incidence originated from private property or City's infrastructure as well as to determine if it was a "one-time" occurrence or "chronic" situation.

e. Conduct site visits and resident interviews for the properties where historical basement flooding was reported. The purpose of this task is to determine the source of flood water, ascertain whether the problem originated from private property (internal plumbing, lot drainage) or from public ROW (surface water on streets, City's sewers), and collect information to help identify the flood clusters. The Consultant is expected to review the available background documentation related to these properties, such as Hansen reports, CCTV data, and others, to be aware of potential flooding causes prior to visiting these properties. The consultant is expected to create and complete a resident interview form to record the relevant information for each property.

f. Using this high-level risk analysis, identify basement flooding clusters where common causes are believed by the Consultant to have contributed to basement or surface flooding. Create figures showing the clusters and the overlay of the relevant data layers to demonstrate the potential causes of flooding.

VIEWING C

OPY




g. Based on the data collected to-date and the high-level risk analysis, stipulate whether the likely cause of the flooding was due to overland flow, sewer capacity issue, or private side issue (lot grading or local plumbing).

h. If high ground-water table is cited as a potential cause for flooding, the Consultant shall substantiate the claim using the findings of Subsurface and Groundwater Investigation, rainfall, and flow monitoring results (if available).

i. Propose a Field Survey and Investigation Program for areas of concern (flood clusters and associated watersheds or sewersheds, as applicable). Section 2.3.7 outlines the scope for field investigation of Flood Clusters, as well as provisional components that the Consultant may draw upon. The Consultant can also propose other types of investigation not listed in Section 2.3.7. For the purposes of the proposal, the Proponent shall assume that 50% of each Study Area will be within a Flood Cluster.

j. The Consultant shall develop a Field Survey and Investigation Program for areas of concern and include a Work Plan in TM#1. The actual implementation of the Field Survey Program is intended to take place as part of TM#2, based on the Work Plan reviewed and approved by the City as part of TM#1. The Work Plan shall document, as a minimum, the following items:

1. Description of task;

2. Description of approach and methodology;

3. Location;

4. Data/information to be collected;

5. Start date and end date;

6. Foreseeable issues/challenges and potential resolutions;

7. Data definitions to be used in the PKDBS

k. Propose additional data to be collected for areas of concern (flood clusters and associated watersheds or sewersheds, as applicable). Section 2.3.8 outlines the scope of the additional data collection exercise. The Consultant can propose other types of data to be collected that are not listed in Section 2.3.8.

l. As Class EA requirements may have to be satisfied for some of the Solutions identified through this Study, the contents of TM#1 shall be organized such that they can satisfy the Problem Identification (Phase I) of the Class EA / Master Plan process.

m. The Consultant shall submit the preliminary assessment report as part of Technical Memorandum (TM) #1 for each Study Area.

2.3.6 RAINFALL AND FLOW MONITORING PLAN

a. The Consultant shall prepare and submit a rainfall and flow monitoring plan (herein referred to as the Plan for the remainder of Section 2.3.6) for each Study Area. The Plan must address the following as a minimum:

1. Justification and description of the proposed monitoring program, and how the proposed rainfall and/or flow monitors will contribute to a better understanding of the drainage systems identified by the preliminary assessment described in Section 2.3.5.

2. The flow monitors shall be able to measure the water depth and/or flow velocity under free flow and surcharged conditions. All equipment shall comply with City standards. Installations within the sewers and/or MHs, both storm and sanitary, must satisfy NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) Standard 820, “Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities”, i.e. be explosion-proof and intrinsically safe (as regulated by Canadian Standards Association and/or Ontario Electrical Code requirements).

VIEWING C

OPY




3. Rainfall and/or flow monitoring data shall be collected in 5-minute intervals.

4. Number of rain gauges and/or flow monitors to be installed.

5. Location of each rain gauge and the factors contributing to it being a successful site for installation, monitoring, and maintenance (e.g. ownership of roof, ability to access roof, proximity to tall trees, structures, or other obstructions, etc.)

6. Type and description of rain gauge proposed for each location.

7. Location of each flow monitor and the catchment area boundaries.

8. Type of monitoring equipment for each flow monitoring site, e.g. level monitoring, level and velocity monitoring, etc.

9. The monitoring program for each Study Area should be implemented over a minimum period of 24 continuous months (including winter period(s) when the equipment may not be maintained). For each calendar year that occurs during this monitoring period, the monitoring and maintenance requirements shall begin on April 1 and end on October 31, unless otherwise dictated by the start and/or end of the 24 month monitoring program taking place within this period.

10. Continuous rainfall and flow monitoring through the winter season may not be effective due to the accumulation of snow/ice on the ground surface, runoff measurements being impacted by snowmelt, and the lack of intense rainfall events that typically cause basement flooding. Maintenance of monitoring equipment may also be more challenging during the winter season for equipment installed on or off roadways. For these reasons, the Consultant is not required to perform data collection starting from November 1 to March 31 of the following year inclusive throughout the duration of the monitoring period. The Consultant may choose to remove the monitoring equipment for storage and re-install at the start of the next monitoring season. Alternatively, the Consultant may choose to prepare/winterize the equipment, leave them on-site unmaintained during the winter months, and re-activate at the start of the next monitoring season. The Consultant can also recommend other plans of not maintaining equipment through the winter season. Regardless of the method of winterization chosen, the Consultant will not be paid for additional removal/storage/installation of equipment, or for equipment maintenance and data acquisition/QA/QC during and as part of the winterization activities. The Consultant shall describe their winter season approach clearly in their rainfall and flow monitoring plan including the start and end dates, and make due considerations in determining the applicable provision unit prices to be submitted.

b. Upon approval of the monitoring plan by the City, the Consultant shall implement the approved monitoring plan along with the following minimum tasks and those listed under Tables 5.2A and 5.2F inclusive (Unit Price Provisional Items and Provisional Cash Allowances).

1. The Consultant shall conduct site assessment, in the field, to confirm suitability of site locations and suitability of the type of monitoring equipment to be installed. The site assessment shall include identification of alternate locations when necessary.

2. The Consultant shall notify the City at least one week in advance of the monitoring equipment installation/removal so that the appropriate operating divisions can be notified and approval obtained to access MHs. This notification shall include the submission of a geodatabase illustrating the locations of the monitoring equipment.

3. The Consultant shall coordinate with all affected parties (e.g. TTC) and is responsible for obtaining all required permits to access monitor sites in a timely fashion.

VIEWING C

OPY




4. The Consultant shall take photographs of flow monitor locations and record site information and conditions including address, traffic conditions and accessibility. Photographs of flow meters installed with a clear description of the chamber conditions; accessibility; invert depth; pipe shape, size and material; flow conditions; and date, time and weather at the time of installation must also be logged and recorded. This information will be included in Technical Memorandum #5, which is to be prepared as part of preliminary design component.

5. The Consultant shall carry out quality control on the data collected on a weekly or more frequent basis to ensure that the equipment is in good working order and that the data collected is of good quality. Prompt corrective actions should be taken by the Consultant should the data review indicate an issue in the data collection process. The City will not pay for periods when the raw and/or validated data is missing or of poor quality.

6. The Consultant shall maintain the monitoring equipment in good working condition and will be responsible for repairing and/or replacing the monitors and associated accessories if they are vandalized, lost, or damaged due to debris, high floodwater or corrosion. The Consultant shall include logs of all maintenance activities in Technical Memorandum #5, which is to be prepared as part of the preliminary design component. The information to be provided should include meter depth and/or velocity measurements, as well as battery and equipment conditions.

7. All rain gauges and flow monitors must be site-calibrated before and be operational by April 1 of each monitoring season under this Contract.

2.3.7 FIELD SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION (TM #2)

a. The Consultant shall develop and carry out a comprehensive Field Survey and Investigation Program (FS&IP) that must be tailored for areas of concern (flood clusters and associated watersheds or sewersheds, as applicable). The scope of the FS&IP shall be based on the work-plan developed as part of TM#1 (Section 2.3.5), which should include items listed in item 2.3.6.c as a minimum. For the purposes of the proposal, the Proponent shall assume that 50% or each Study Area will be within a Flood Cluster. See Section 5 for further directions on submitting costs for the field survey component.

b. A well-planned field program must take into account the unique characteristics of each Study Area, based on review of the data collection and high level risk analysis undertaken as part of TM#1. The program shall be based on the Flood Clusters within the refined and confirmed Study Area boundaries.

c. The minimum FS&IP requirements (base scope) include the survey of: visible roof downspout connections, reverse sloped driveways, flat sloped (poor drainage) properties, surface topography including street low points and underpasses, overland flow surface drainage paths including spill locations and roadside ditches, catchbasin types and locations, storm sewer outfalls, perforated storm/sanitary/combined sewer MH lids, dual MHs, pumping stations.

1. Survey and record in the PKDBS the number and locations of connected and disconnected roof downspouts, and where the roof leaders are discharged to (e.g. to front yard, backyard, driveway, or into the ground), for ALL properties in the Study Areas. The survey of properties for downspout connections is to be conducted without accessing the property, i.e. a curb-view survey.

2. Identify and record, in the PKDBS, the properties with a flat/depressed/reversed slope driveway and/or poor surface drainage (e.g. flat surface) within the Flood Clusters. The Consultant shall take typical sample photographs in the field.

VIEWING C

OPY




3. Using GPS device to verify locations (in x-y coordinates, with a survey accuracy of 0.5 m or better) and types of City owned catchbasins within the Flood Clusters, and compare them to City database. Attention must be paid to identify perforated sanitary and storm maintenance hole lids that have combination CB-MH covers. It has been observed that some of the MH covers with CB grates remained after the original combined sewers were converted to separate sanitary and storm sewer systems (identify and record in the PKDBS all the combination CB-MH cover lids). Photographs of each type of catchbasin grates and MH covers shall be provided. Based on field results, update the catchbasin network to correspond to field findings.

4. Verify through field (visual) survey the low lying areas (on streets, to parks, etc.), existing overland flow paths, overland flow spill paths and outlets, including the depth to spill, extent of ponding, and potential detention locations. Field survey of roadside ditches. At a minimum, field measurements shall be taken to enable the ditches to be represented in the model with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Identify whether there is a need to collect supplementary topographic information.

5. Other necessary data required for the major system/surface flow modeling, such as street widths and cross-sections, low-point stage-storage-spill discharge relationships, major system flow paths and spill paths, etc. are to be determined and collected by the Consultant

6. Conduct a field survey of the storm outfall locations; document the existing condition of storm outfall structures including its: configuration and condition, shape, size, dimensions, flow rate and flow depth on the day of the survey, the invert elevation of the outfall pipe with respect to the ground surface level, whether the outfall pipe is a free flow outfall, partially or totally submerged outfall. Take photographs of the storm outfalls and views looking upstream and downstream from the outfall. Photographs taken shall be geo-tagged and with captions as part of the PKDBS.

d. The Consultant may choose to include in their work some FS&IP components that are not included in the base scope. They are listed below. Payment for these items will be made from a provisional cash allowance (see Section 5).

1. Topographical survey of the roadside ditches, existing overland flow paths, overland flow spill paths and outlets, low points, and potential detention locations in accordance with Engineering Survey Standards for Consultants (Version 2.5)

2. Based on results of review of collected data, the Consultant shall determine whether smoke/dye tests are required.

3. Field survey of flow control structures (FCS), including, but not limited to Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). The Consultant shall conduct this task in accordance with Engineering Survey Standards for Consultants (Version 2.5), City of Toronto, Engineering & Construction Services. The Consultant shall:

a) Provide a schematic drawing for each FCS, which shows but is not limited to the following field information: the size and the invert elevation of each pipe connected to the manhole or chamber; pipe flow direction; labels for the inflow pipe, outflow pipe (i.e., the pipe that carries the DWF), and overflow pipe; the weir crest elevation, and the weir length. Inside the manhole or chamber, record the measured flow depth, the date and time that the measurement was taken, and the weather at time of measurement in the report. Take photos inside the manhole showing the FCS and other relevant information. Label key items such as inflow pipe, outflow pipe, overflow pipe, control structure, etc. on the photos.

b) Compare with the desktop information and provide comments on the consistency of the data in the report.

VIEWING C

OPY




c) Prepare a survey report, a schematic, and high resolution videos and photos (10 MP or better) for each FCS. Sample schematic is attached as Sheet 1 in the Appendix E of this RFP.

d) City of Toronto Sewer Asset Planning (SAP) department undertook a survey of some CSOs in 2018. The results of this survey will be provided to the successful Proponent. Appendix E.7 lists the manhole ID's of the surveyed CSOs.

4. After review of collected data and existing sewer CCTV records and videos, the Consultant shall determine whether additional sewer CCTV inspection is required.

e. The Consultant shall summarize the data collected, document the field survey and site investigation key findings and observations, and provide interpretation of the information. All field data shall be saved in the PKDBS and the Consultant shall prepare ArcGIS figures that plot and overlay the data collected.

f. The following is a sample list of maps/figures to be included in TM#2 to illustrate the field survey task:

1. Surveyed Storm Outfall Locations

2. Surveyed Storm Outfalls Documentation (photos, sketches, field notes, etc.)

3. Surveyed CSO Structure Locations

4. Surveyed CSO Structure Documentation (photos, sketches, field notes, etc.)

5. Roof Downspout Connections

6. Reverse Sloped Driveway Locations

7. Surveyed Catchbasin Locations and Type Identified

8. Large Parking Area Catchbasins and Type

9. Sag Catchbasin Locations

10. Catchbasin Types (1, 2, 3, etc.) and Photos

11. Low Lying Area Survey

12. Poor Lot Grading

2.3.8 ADDITIONAL DATA COLLECTION FOR FLOODING CLUSTERS (TM #2)

a. The Consultant shall carry out additional data collection for areas of concern (flood clusters and associated watersheds or sewersheds, as applicable). The scope of the additional data collection shall be based on the work-plan developed as part of TM#1 (Section 2.3.5), which should include items listed in Section 2.3.7.c and Table 2.4 as a minimum. For the purposes of the proposal, the Proponent shall assume that 50% or each Study Area will be within a Flood Cluster. See Section 5 for further directions on submitting costs for the additional data collection effort.

b. This additional data is intended to be used to gain more confidence in stipulated causes of flooding, as presented in TM#1. It is also intended to be used to help refine the model development and help with selection of the appropriate modelling parameters (see Section 2.3.9 for details related to the model set-up).

c. The Consultant shall collect relevant information including design drawings and operation and maintenance manuals of flow control structures (weirs, orifices, gates, valves, pumps, storage tanks, etc.) and make sure they understand the functions and operations of these FCS within the Flood Clusters.

VIEWING C

OPY




d. Verification of foundation drain connections (i.e. connecting to the City’s storm, sanitary, combined sewers, and pump to grade or other) for the properties in the Flood Clusters is important in order to understand the causes of flooding. The Consultant shall review "drain cards", sewer construction year, building construction year, building codes, sewer by-laws, sewer design manuals and practices for the homes in the Flood Clusters to develop appropriate assumptions on foundation drain connections.

e. Review as-built drawings for sewers near the properties that reported basement flooding to confirm that the sewer network is consistent with the City's geo-database.

f. Review CCTV videos, near properties that reported basement flooding, to identify any structural or operational deficiencies that may be contributing to basement flooding.

g. Provide input for the preparation of a flooding questionnaire to be issued to residents and/or property managers within the Study Areas. The City will post the questionnaire on-line. The City will collect the answered questionnaires, and provide them to the Consultant. In addition, the Consultant will be provided with data collected from the City's Basement Flooding Subsidy Protection Program and Mandatory Downspout Disconnection. The Consultant shall enter the responses of the questionnaires and results into the PKDBS to supplement and compare with the City's Hansen flooding incidence reports. The Consultant shall sort, organize, categorise and summarize the questionnaire results, and undertake the review and analyses of the collected information and incorporate the findings into the model verification process.

h. The Consultant shall create figures showing the confirmed / assumed subsurface connectivity for foundation drains and connected downspouts. The figures should clearly show the source of the information (drain-cards / survey or assumption). Where connectivity is assumed, TM #2 should substantiate the assumptions using flow monitoring data (if available), age of construction, CCTV records, etc...

Table 2.4 – Additional Data Collection Summary

Description Data Provider/Link

G2-1 Smoke-test / Dye-test Results TW DO

G2-2 Information of foundation drain connections and drain cards that show lateral connections

Building

G2-3 As-built drawings ImageSite

2.3.9 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC (H&H) MODELLING (TM #2)

a. To date, the Basement Flooding Protection Program's hydrologic and hydraulic models, developed through previous EA studies, have been calibrated to available flow monitoring data. Due to the statistical unlikelihood of an extreme event occurring during the relatively short monitoring period of the study, in recognition of the program's focus on the drainage system's performance during extreme events, and as part of the effort to reduce the duration of BFPP studies, the requirement to calibrate the model to available flow monitoring data has been changed for this study. The requirements of this new approach are outlined below.

b. The Consultant shall develop the hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) computer simulation model for the storm sewer system (minor system), overland flow drainage system (major system), and the sanitary and combined sewer system, using the InfoWorks ICM model. The results of the models shall be verified against basement flooding records. The consultant shall use the H&H model for analyzing the performance of the storm, sanitary and combined sewer systems and overland flow drainage system. The following items outline the City’s general expectations in completing this task and the Consultant shall meet these expectations.

VIEWING C

OPY




c. The modelling software to be used shall be InfoWorks ICM by Innovyze, Version 9.0, or the latest version available at the time of the Project initiation meeting.

d. The modelling approach should closely follow the City of Toronto “InfoWorks Basement Flooding Model Studies Guidelines” and “Modelling Methodology for Combined Sewer Areas” provided in this RFP (Appendix E). These guidelines were developed to maintain consistency across all basement flooding studies in the City. Maintaining consistency in modelling approaches has value that outweighs the benefits of pursuing unique individual model set-up/approaches by the Consultants of individual studies. It is the responsibility of the Consultant to familiarize themselves with the guidelines and clarify any questions/concerns that they may have prior to proceeding with the model development. If any sections of this RFP contradict any sections in the Modelling Guidelines, the requirements outlined in the RFP shall govern.

e. Due to the unique characteristics of the Project Area and the complexity of sewer networks, there may be situations that the modelling approach in the current Modelling Guidelines does not cover or may not cover sufficiently. The Consultant shall develop site-specific modelling approaches to supplement and improve the modelling approaches documented in the current guidelines, and present these approaches to the City for approval.

f. The Consultant shall determine and recommend if there are locations in their Project Area(s) where 2D modelling with InfoWorks ICM (full version, not ICM SE) can improve accuracy and/or shorten the study schedule.

g. The Consultant shall use InfoWorks ICM (full version, not ICM SE), for surface flow modelling, for the locations recommended by the Consultant. This task shall include all data preparation including data cleansing, processing of LIDAR data, hydrologic conditioning of the DEM, burn-in road curbs, etc. and payment will be through a Provisional Cash Allowance.

h. The H&H model shall model both underground sewer system networks (including interceptors and trunk sewers) and surface flow paths in an integrated approach for the Project Area(s).

i. The Consultant shall review all City-provided models from previous studies and determine the suitability of using the models as a starting point for H&H model development.

j. For areas where improvement works have been implemented or are proceeding to construction, the Consultant shall verify and update the base model to include the updated sewer network information and/or as-built condition associated with the improvement works.

k. The InfoWorks model input data shall be set up with the flexibility to allow modification in the future using "global change" (e.g. for modifying the subcatchment types: roofs, driveways, backyards, etc., and their percent distribution, surface types, or changing the inlet type: inlet node, gully, etc.). The model shall be set up based on the provided guidelines.

l. All modeling results shall be imported to ArcGIS for visualization, interpretation and presentation. The Consultant shall combine the surface water elevations resulting from the hydrologic and hydraulic models and the results from the GIS surface flow paths and contour model. The extents and depths of the surface flooding are to be plotted for each of the historic and design storm events. Colour encoding of nodes and pipes shall be used to illustrate freeboard below ground surface and percent pipe full, respectively.

m. The Consultant shall account for the boundary conditions at the interceptor, trunk sewers, watercourses and lake, and account for their effects on backups and surcharges to the sanitary/combined and storm sewer systems. Floodplain mapping and models obtained from Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) will be reviewed to establish the boundary conditions at storm/CSO outfalls and overflow structures where a Study Area is adjacent to the floodplain of a river/creek and lake. Boundary conditions for the sanitary/combined trunk sewer systems are to be established from City data and the City's trunk sewer models. All boundary condition assumptions shall be clearly stated and agreed to by the City.

VIEWING C

OPY




n. The Consultant shall incorporate the computer models from other Study Areas (completed or on-going EAs) in the analysis and evaluation of the sewers capacity, where the other Study Areas are hydraulically connected with the Project Area. The InfoWorks computer models for the adjacent completed and on-going EA studies may have been built using different versions of InfoWorks. The Consultant will be responsible for converting these models to the latest version of InfoWorks ICM as part of the base scope. In the case of on-going EAs, the Consultant will also be responsible for coordinating with other Consultants to identify and evaluate alternatives (where applicable) relevant to the ongoing Study Areas.

o. The model shall be extended to include external areas upstream and downstream of the Study Areas to account for the hydraulic impacts of the upstream and downstream areas (see Modelling Area in definitions). If existing InfoWorks models are available for upstream or downstream areas, the Consultant shall either incorporate these existing areas into their model, or create and use hydrographs to account for these boundary conditions. This work shall be a part of the base scope of work and budget. If the lumped approach is taken, it shall be sufficiently discretized to account for all hydraulically critical components such as major system overland flows, overflow diversions, and storage facilities.

p. The H&H models developed for the Modelling Area shall be capable of performing both single event and continuous simulation.

q. The Consultant shall document the existing sewer utilization level for each segment of storm, sanitary, and/or combined sewer in the PKDBF. Each pipe segment shall show the storm under which the existing pipe capacity is exceeded, considering the range of design storm events (i.e., 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year, May 12, 2000, August 19, 2005 and July 8, 2013). The sewer utilization level shall be evaluated using the pipe surcharge state and the slope of the HGL (free flow, 1 or 2); an Existing Sewer Utilization figure/map shall be prepared to show colour coded pipes based on the surcharge state.

r. The Consultant shall document the existing and proposed condition sewer performance level for each node in the PKDBS. Each pipe node will show the expected HGL level with the sewer system, considering the range of design storm events (i.e., 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year, May 12, 2000, August 19, 2005 and July 8, 2013). The sewer performance levels shall be evaluated using the HGL elevations and ground surface elevations to identify a gradation of conditions ranging from exceeding City standards to not meeting City's HGL targets; a Sewer Improvement Opportunities figure/map shall be prepared to show colour coded nodes.

s. The Consultant shall document the existing and proposed condition surface drainage performance level for each node in the PKDBF. Each pipe node will show the expected surface flow depth, at the gutter, on the road surfaces, considering the range of design storm events (i.e., 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year , May 12, 2000, August 19, 2005 and July 8, 2013). The surface drainage performance levels shall be evaluated using expected road surface flow depths to identify a gradation of conditions ranging from exceeding City standards to not meeting City's HGL targets; a Surface Drainage Performance figure/map shall be prepared to show colour coded nodes.

t. The Consultant shall correlate the results of the storm drainage assessment with the sanitary/combined sewer system assessment to analyze the magnitude and extent of surcharging in the storm, sanitary and combined sewer systems during the various design and real storm events, and differentiate the cause(s) of flooding. If additional fieldwork or flood analysis is required to understand system interdependencies and/or to adjust the computer model, payment will be made under Provisional Cash Allowance.

u. The Consultant shall submit a Compact Transportable Database containing the entire InfoWorks model created as part of the Project as described in Appendix E of the Modelling Guidelines.

VIEWING C

OPY




2.3.10 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ASSESSMENT (TM #2)

a. The Consultant shall carry out the following tasks as part of the storm drainage system hydrologic and hydraulic assessment.

b. Delineate subcatchments according to the procedure outlined in the Modelling Guidelines. All municipal storm pipes (excluding service laterals and catchbasin leads) within the Modelling Area are to be included in the hydraulic model.

c. Develop hydrologic and hydraulic models, which represent the dual drainage (major and minor) storm drainage systems for the Study Areas (one model for each Study Area). Dual drainage system assessment for storm drainage is required to quantify surface flooding characteristics with overland flow rates and flow depths, storm sewer flow characteristics, and to evaluate alternative remediation measures. A GIS-based, hydrologically conditioned, digital elevation model shall be developed to define the major system (street) surface drainage flow patterns and identify/quantify low lying areas within and outside of street right-of-ways (ROWs).

d. In addition to traditional rainfall data monitored with rain gauges, the City can provide a set of gauge-adjusted weather radar-derived rainfall data files (with background information) for five (5) discrete historical rainfall events (i.e., October 28-30, 2015; June 22-24, 2015; July 6-9, 2013; July 18-21, 2007 and August 19-20, 2005) over the City of Toronto. These data files may provide improvements over the traditional gauge-derived City rainfall data with respect to interpreting the spatial variation of rainfall distribution from point data in the absence of other information. The Consultant shall review the radar-derived rainfall and determine whether radar-derived rainfall can improve the accuracy of the H&H model.

e. The Consultant shall utilize the radar-derived rainfall data files to refine the model after confirmation that it is suitable for use (Provisional Cash Allowance);

f. Set up meetings with the City to review assumptions, boundary conditions and findings during model set-up and evaluation of problem areas against basement flooding records; the Consultant shall alert the City when making key assumptions and simplifications that can affect results and Solutions; interim copies of the computer model may be required by the City during review.

g. Assess the operation of the major and minor storm systems using the models under the major rain storm events, May 12, 2000, August 19, 2005 and July 8, 2013 and any other suitable events. Compare the simulated results with the validated reported basement flooding complaints provided from the Study Areas. The Consultant shall review CCTV and maintenance records and conduct site visits to explain/verify discrepancies between modeling results and flooding complaints, and adjust model parameters to reflect actual observations. When it is determined to be necessary, the Consultant shall conduct additional site investigations, field survey, smoke and dye tests, CCTV with lateral launch capabilities to confirm sewer condition and whether basements are connected to the storm sewer system and field confirmation of the drainage area to verify model data/results with actual site conditions and observations (Provisional Cash Allowance).

h. The following storm events are to be modelled and analysed:

1. 2-year design storm;



4. 25-year design storm; and

5. 100-year design storm

6. May 12, 2000

7. August 19, 2005

VIEWING C

OPY




8. July 8, 2013

i. Analyse the modelling results in combination with the information gathered for the storm drainage system to establish possible cause(s) of flooding.

j. Prepare a Technical Memorandum (TM#2) on the engineering assessment of the existing storm drainage conditions, incorporating the model results, identifying flooding problem areas and the factors contributing to surface flooding and/or surcharge of the minor system. The general performance of both the minor and major storm systems under the existing conditions shall be discussed, citing the mechanism(s) by which water entered the properties and/or basements, and the potential interaction, which linked the storm, sanitary and/or combined and groundwater systems. Overland flow rates and depths, flow velocities and volumes conveyed through the major system, and accumulated water depths at low points on streets and outside of the street ROWs shall be identified. This technical memorandum shall be prepared in conjunction with the engineering assessment of the sanitary and combined sewer system. The verification of the model for the existing condition must be accepted by the City prior to commencing evaluation of alternatives for remediation.

k. Organize meetings/work sessions to present the work completed at each stage of this task to City staff, including, but not limited to, model setup, model analyses, assumptions, model runs, results, interpretation, conclusions, etc.

2.3.11 SANITARY AND COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ASSESSMENT (TM #2)

a. The Consultant shall carry out the following tasks as part of the sanitary and combined sewer system hydrologic and hydraulic assessment.

b. Develop hydrologic and hydraulic models, with delineation of subcatchment drainage areas on a MH-to-MH level, to represent the sanitary and/or combined sewer systems of the Study Areas (one model for each Study Area).

c. Where flow data is available, calibrate and validate the model using the flow data collected for dry weather flow (DWF). The Consultant shall separate the DWF into two components, the wastewater flow (i.e. domestic sanitary) and the baseflow (i.e. dry weather inflow/infiltration, groundwater, etc.).

d. Where no flow monitoring data is available, for DWF use 240 L/c/d for existing population for both residential and employment populations with a groundwater infiltration allowance of 0.26 L/s/ha. The Consultant shall select an appropriate diurnal pattern based on the land use of the catchment. Information from completed Basement Flooding studies and models, and other studies and models completed in Toronto may be used to further refine the dry weather flow parameters. It is expected that the level of effort expended by the Consultant on the development and refinement of DWF parameters will be commensurate with the small impact that even large variations in DWF contributions have on the extreme event wet weather flow (WWF) conditions that are the focus of the Basement Flooding Protection Program.

e. The Consultant shall identify one of the methods in the InfoWorks model (RTK, Ground Infiltration, and Runoff) to simulate wet weather inflow/infiltration in the sanitary and combined sewer system. For the sanitary sewer system, the model should reproduce inflow and infiltration unit flow rates of 3.0 L/s/ha during a storm equivalent to May 12, 2000 as measured at Oriole Yard.

f. The Combined Sewer System shall be modelled following the Modelling Methodology for Combined Sewer Areas

VIEWING C

OPY




g. In addition to traditional rainfall data monitored with rain gauges, the City can provide a set of gauge-adjusted weather radar-derived rainfall data files (with background information) for five (5) discrete historical rainfall events (i.e., October 28-30, 2015; June 22-24, 2015; July 6-9, 2013; July 18-21, 2007 and August 19-20, 2005) over the City of Toronto. These data files may provide improvements over the traditional gauge-derived City rainfall data with respect to interpret the spatial variation of rainfall distribution from point data in the absence of other information. The Consultant shall review the radar-derived rainfall and determine whether radar-derived rainfall can improve the accuracy of the H&H model;

h. The Consultant shall utilize the radar-derived rainfall data files to refine the model after confirmation that it is suitable for use (Provisional Cash Allowance);

i. Set up meetings with the City to review assumptions and findings during model set-up and evaluation of problem areas. The Consultant shall alert the City when making key assumptions and simplifications that can affect results and Solutions. Interim copies of the computer model may be required by the City during review.

j. Use the model(s) to assess the performance of the existing sanitary and combined sewer system under major rain storm events that resulted in reported basement flooding within the Study Area, for the May 12, 2000, August 19, 2005 and July 8, 2013, events. Compare and validate the simulated results with the validated reported basement flooding complaints received in the Study Areas. The Consultant shall conduct site visits to explain/verify discrepancies between modelling results and the flooding complaints, and adjust model parameters to reflect actual observations. When required, the Consultant shall conduct additional site investigations, field survey, smoke and dye tests, CCTV (with lateral launch capability) to confirm sewer condition and field confirmation of the drainage area to verify model/results with actual site conditions and observations (Provisional Cash Allowance).

k. Apply the sanitary/combined sewer model to assess the performance of the sanitary/combined sewer system under WWF condition for both existing/baseline (2016 population) and future population (2041 projected population). Apply 450 L/c/d for the future population.

l. The following storm events are to be modelled and analyzed for both existing (2016) and future (2041) population scenarios:





5. 100-year design storm; and

6. May 12, 2000 storm

7. August 19, 2005

8. July 8, 2013

m. Correlate the results of the storm drainage assessment with the sanitary/combined sewer system assessment to analyze the magnitude and extent of surcharging in the storm and sanitary/combined sewer systems during the various design and real storm events, and differentiate the cause(s) of flooding; identify subcatchments where there may be significant wet weather inflow/infiltration to the sanitary sewer system through illegal cross-connections and identify sources of I/I entering the sanitary sewers (e.g. through foundation drain and downspout connections, MH lid cover leaks, combination CB-MH covers, cracked or broken MHs/pipes, and displaced open pipe joints and connections); discrepancies between modeling results, flow data (if available), and flooding complaints shall be checked by re-visiting the field and re-adjusting the computer model to reflect actual observations (Provisional Cash Allowance).

VIEWING C

OPY




n. Prepare a Technical Memorandum (TM) #2 on the engineering assessment of the existing sanitary and combined sewer system(s) incorporating the model calibration/validation results; identify locations of the problem areas and the respective factors contributing to sanitary and combined sewer system surcharge and basement flooding; discuss the general level of service of the sanitary and combined sewer system for conveying dry and wet weather flows, citing the mechanism(s) by which water enters the basements and the potential interaction which linked the storm, sanitary, combined and groundwater systems, and how these interactions are reflected in the InfoWorks model; identify areas with significant I/I and the potential sources of I/I and recommend further I/I studies. This technical memorandum shall be prepared in conjunction with the engineering assessment of the storm sewer system. The verification of the InfoWorks model for the existing condition must be accepted by the City prior to commencing evaluation of alternatives for remediation.

o. Organize meetings/work sessions to present the work completed at each stage of this task to City staff, including, but not limited to, model setup, model analyses, assumptions, model runs, results, interpretation, conclusions, etc.

p. Technical Memorandum (TM) #2 shall be submitted to the City by the Consultant upon the completion of the tasks outlined in Sections 2.3.7 to 2.3.11 for each Study Area (i.e., one TM for each of the Study Areas). The main purpose of TM#2 is to assess the performance of the City's sewer systems under existing and future conditions and to identify problem areas and causes of basement and surface flooding by means of replicating real conditions in the hydrologic model as part of model verifications. This TM shall document the model development considering all the findings from TM#1.

2.3.12 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS AND PREFERRED SOLUTIONS (TM #3)

a. The Consultant shall complete the following activities to develop and evaluate flood control measures, that are required under the projected population provided and future land use condition, that will mitigate sewer capacity deficiencies and basement flooding problems.

b. The downspout disconnection rate for the baseline scenario shall be the highest of 75% or the existing surveyed disconnection rate.

c. For the storm sewer system, use the InfoWorks model, developed for TM#2, to identify and evaluate various flooding remediation Solutions including, but not limited to, the following suggested measures to meet the targeted level of service criteria under future land use condition:

1. Increasing inlet capacity to the sewers;

2. Catchbasin inlet controls (maximum 20 L/sec per inlet control device and not more than 33% of the total number of catchbasins);

3. In-line or off-line storages;

4. Stormwater Management Facilities;

5. Storm relief sewers;

6. Upsizing of sewer sizes/capacities;

7. Sewer rehabilitation. Where any of the above Solutions are proposed, the Consultant shall review CCTV reports of existing storm sewers for a length of 200 meters downstream and propose prioritized maintenance and/or "like-for-like" replacements where 10% or more of the pipes cross-sectional area is not available for conveyance.

8. Overland flow path diversion;

9. Various feasible combinations of the above.

VIEWING C

OPY




10. The proposed remedial works shall consider retrofitting the existing major system so that the excessive flows can travel along public overland flow path to watercourses or open areas instead of entering the City's sewers. For areas without public overland flow path outlets, new storm sewers and/ or storages may be considered.

d. For the sanitary and combined sewer system, use the accepted InfoWorks model developed through TM#2 to identify and evaluate various flood remediation Solutions, including, but not limited to, the following suggested measures to meet the level of service criteria under projected population provided by the City and future land use condition:

1. Replacing perforated combination CB-MH lids with solid lids;

2. Sealing sanitary MH covers in low-lying areas to prevent inflow;

3. Inline/offline underground storage;

4. Sewer upgrades;

5. Relief sewers (e.g. twinning - acceptable only where a single equivalent pipe is not constructible);

6. Flow diversion;

7. Sewer rehabilitation. Where any of the above Solutions are proposed, the Consultant shall review CCTV reports of existing sanitary/combined sewers for a length of 200 meters downstream and propose prioritized maintenance and/or "like-for-like" replacements where 10% or more of the pipes cross-sectional area is not available for conveyance.

8. Replacement of all manhole chimneys and covers in low lying areas, with modern watertight products; modify the proposed condition simulations to account for the I/I reduction from this improvement. Combine flood remediation Solutions with I/I reduction measures to ensure that any increase in wet weather flow to trunk sewers caused by sewer upgrades are offset by reductions attributable to replacing manhole chimneys and covers in low lying areas to achieve the target of no net-increase in wet weather flow to the trunk;

9. Various feasible combinations of the above

e. For the sanitary and combined sewer systems, apply the model with 1991 typical year rainfall to perform continuous simulation modelling to assess CSO impact, as per MOECC F-5-5, under existing condition and preferred solution condition.

f. If any CSOs are found not to meet the F-5-5 criteria, determine whether such infractions are being addressed through City's other ongoing efforts, such as Don River and Central Waterfront works or others. If there are no ongoing initiatives to address such CSOs, propose Solutions to meet the F-5-5 criteria.

g. Where flow monitoring data is available for the sanitary and combined sewer systems, the preferred alternatives shall be designed using the City’s design wastewater flow rate of 450 L/cap/day applied to the population growth and a unit rate of 3 L/s/ha for wet weather flow during a storm equivalent to May 12, 2000, as measured at Oriole Yard. The groundwater allowance and the existing population flow rate shall be taken from the available flow monitoring data.

h. Where no flow monitoring data is available for the sanitary sewer systems, the preferred alternatives shall be designed using an average dry weather flow of 450 L/cap/day (this includes the groundwater infiltration allowance) for the entire 2041 population and a unit rate of 3 L/s/ha for wet weather flow during a storm equivalent to May 12, 2000, as measured at Oriole Yard.

VIEWING C

OPY




i. Where no flow monitoring data is available for the combined sewer systems, the preferred alternatives shall be designed using an average dry weather flow of 450 L/cap/day (this includes the groundwater infiltration allowance) for the entire 2041 population and a minimum unit rate of 3 L/s/ha for wet weather flow during a storm equivalent to May 12, 2000, as measured at Oriole Yard. The unit rate for wet weather flow in a combined sewer system is highly sensitive to the degree of sewer separation in the catchment. It is the consultant's responsibility to confirm the degree of sewer separation achieved to justify the appropriate unit rate applied for wet weather flow in the catchment.

j. Additional considerations for developing and evaluating Solutions include the following:

1. Where trunk sewers are found to receive a lot of I/I under existing conditions, it is considered beyond the scope of a BFPP study to find a solution to reduce trunk sewer I/I and/or HGL levels. Recommendation for further trunk sewer analysis shall be provided in the study under this condition – i.e., BFPP studies are not meant to replace detailed infiltration/inflow (I/I) investigations.

2. Where trunk sewer surcharging is resulting in local sewer system surcharging, the option of isolating the local sewer system (storage and/or check valving) to protect the local sewer system from the trunk sewer system shall be assessed.

k. The Consultant shall hold a workshop with the City during solution development. The purpose of the workshop is for the Consultant to gather preliminary feedback and to present their rationale for the Solutions, particularly in the following scenarios

1. The solution is a Schedule B or C solution, as defined in Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document. The Consultant shall develop a Schedule A+ alternative and evaluate against the Schedule B/C solution.

2. The solution requires an easement;

3. The solution requires construction of a new outfall;

4. The solution affects mature trees (especially in parks and ravines);

5. The solution encroaches or located on TDSB, TRCA or private property;

6. The solution affects TTC streetcar ROW or is in proximity to subway, rail, highway or other major infrastructure;

7. The solution affects existing infrastructure (playgrounds, surface features); and

8. The solution may not be constructible due to sub-surface conditions (utilities, etc.).

l. If the proposed solution includes a new outfall, include storm outfall impact analysis and identify the required mitigation.

m. Prepare a constructability report as part of TM#3 for the developed Solutions. The report should be prepared by the preliminary engineering team (i.e. not the team undertaking the study component). The report shall confirm constructability, functionality, and feasibility of the proposed Solutions based on the information available at this point. The report shall also identify risks associated with implementing the proposed Solutions, such as schedule risks, impact on public, permitting, land acquisition, and others. The results of the subsurface soil and groundwater assessment prepared as part of TM#1 should be used to evaluate suitability of flood control Solutions such as detention ponds, underground storage, and tunnels. The findings of this constructability report shall be used to confirm the suitability of the Solutions and to inform the Assignment prioritization to be done as part of TM#4.

VIEWING C

OPY




n. Determine/confirm the property/easement requirements. If the solution is located or extends beyond the City's right-of-way, the Consultant shall request the existing easement information from the City. Upon receiving such information, the Consultant shall review it and make a determination of whether the proposed solution can be accommodated within the existing easement or if a new easement needs to be obtained and negotiated.

o. Organize meetings/workshops with any City departments, agencies, and other stakeholders that may be affected by the proposed Solutions, to gather their feedback and incorporate into the alternative selection (if applicable).

p. Prepare cost estimates using the Cost Estimating Tool and Guidelines that will be provided to the Consultant by the City upon request after award. The current version of the Cost Estimating Tool and Guidelines is included in Appendix E. Note that an updated version of the tool/guidelines may be available at the outset of the Project.

q. If the preferred Solutions do not meet the City's "targeted design criteria", the Consultant shall create a table listing all nodes of criteria non-compliance. The table shall contain the following information: node ID, HGL freeboard / overland depth, the reasons for the criteria non-compliance and a justification of why the exceptions should be considered as acceptable by the City. This information will allow the City to be able to make an informed decision of which Assignments could move to implementation should any site conditions, Assignment prioritization rules, or funding availability change in the future. This table, the evaluation and selection of the alternatives and the constructability report shall be presented to the City and the Program Management Consultant in a workshop format prior to the submission of draft TM#3.

r. Undertake a Stage 1 archaeological resources assessment study in accordance with the "2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists", by Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, for the whole Study Area, with specific attention paid to the locations where works are proposed. Recommendation to conduct a Stage II archaeological assessment must be made for locations where a preferred solution is identified. A Cultural heritage assessment must be conducted to determine whether a proposed preferred solution has the potential to impact properties on the City of Toronto "Inventory of Heritage Properties".

2.3.13 ASSIGNMENT SCOPE DEVELOPMENT AND PRIORITIZATION (TM#4)

a. The objective of this task is to develop the scope for preliminary design Assignments and determine the relative priority for completing the preliminary design of Assignments.

b. Through two workshops with City staff, the Consultant will review the TM#3 recommended Solutions and determine the bundling of Solutions to create Basement Flooding Protection Program (BFPP) Assignments. At a minimum, the Assignments will include all the hydraulically connected Solutions that are needed to be implemented together to achieve the BFPP criteria when input into both the existing conditions and proposed conditions model, without negative upstream or downstream impacts. For each Assignment, identify the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Schedule (i.e., A, A+, B or C).

1. For any BFPP Assignments that are identified as Schedule B or C, outline the scope of work and estimate the associated effort for the additional tasks needed to satisfy the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment requirements. Provisional Cash Allowances have been allocated to undertake Schedule B and Schedule C activities.

2. The Consultant will confirm the cost estimates developed in TM#3 and apply the methodology for calculating the cost per benefitting property per BFPP Assignment as provided in Appendix E of this RFP.

VIEWING C

OPY




c. As part of the cost per benefitting property (CPBP) analysis, the Consultant will prepare cost-benefit tables, ArcGIS geodatabase shape files, and figures to show the locations of the BFPP Assignments including an identification number, type of improvement/control, function(s), estimated cost, number of properties benefitted, cost-benefit per property, and the delineated benefiting area for each BFPP Assignment. In addition, the Consultant will provide the ArcGIS cost-benefit database and shape file, which shall include data fields as shown in Appendix E so that they match the City Capital Plan geodatabase and therefore can be easily imported and integrated with capital budget and Assignment planning. The City will share this database with Water Asset Planning and Sewer Asset Planning units in Toronto Water.

d. The development of the preliminary design scope will take into consideration the BFPP Assignment, other works in the City Capital Plan geodatabase and Consultant identified state of good repair (SOGR) works (e.g., the latter two items being defined as additional works). To this end, the Consultant will review the City 5 year Capital Plan geodatabase files covering planned watermain rehabilitations and replacements, sewer rehabilitations and replacements, manhole rehabilitations and replacements, and green infrastructure installations. As well, available CCTV reports will be reviewed for 200 m downstream of the BFPP Assignments and the Consultant will identify SOGR works based on cross-sectional area loss that is equal to or greater than 10%.

e. The Consultant will prepare Scope Management Documents (SMDs) for the preliminary design scope for each BFPP Assignment and the associated additional works (see example provided in Appendix E).

f. The Consultant will determine a priority matrix to be reviewed and approved by the City with consideration of the following minimum criteria, CPBH (with lowest CPBH being high priority), EA schedule (with Schedule A+ being high priority), constructability risk, overall capital cost, operational and maintenance requirements, and coordination with other capital works and plans.

g. Using the priority matrix, the Consultant will evaluate each BFPP Assignment and determine the relative priority for preliminary design services.

h. In addition to the workshops noted above, the Consultant will also organize meetings to present the results including, but not limited to: development of Assignments, cost per benefitting property calculations, assumptions, simplifications, results, interpretation, and conclusions.

i. Technical Memorandum (TM) #4 shall be submitted to the City by the Consultant upon the completion of the tasks outlined in Section 2.3.13 for each Study Area.

2.4 GENERAL PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

2.4.1 The City’s general Project requirements are included in Appendix A.1. General requirements include management and administration procedures, approvals, and standards. The Proponent is responsible for reviewing this information and familiarizing themselves with the City’s requirements, and shall include in their fees the cost of managing the Project according to these requirements.

2.4.2 Appendices – the requirements for provision of engineering services are specified in the Appendices. It is the responsibility of the Proponents to familiarize themselves and comply with the project and contractual requirements of the City, as specified in the Appendices, and to ascertain the full scope of work and the engineering services required for the project, prior to submission of the Proposal.

2.4.3 The following clauses provide additional Project specific requirements, and are to be read in conjunction with the Appendices. Where there is a conflict, the provisions in this section shall take precedence.

VIEWING C

OPY




a. All liaison with City staff are to be coordinated through the designated City Project Manager. This includes all data collection and meetings with staff from the different divisions and sections of the City.

b. The Consultant is required to confirm on-site to their own satisfaction, both the accuracy of the information provided in the City’s RFP and the current site conditions prior to submission of proposals. As-built drawings are not to be solely relied upon for design development. The requirement to meet regulatory codes is considered as being part of the base scope.

c. The targeted timeline for completing each Project (i.e. the study component and the preliminary design component) is 42 months. The timelines are expected to vary from Study Area to Study Area and the timelines can be shorter than 42 months. Key dates for major deliverables must be clearly defined in the Consultants detailed work plan. The Consultant is to develop a timeline that accounts for uncertainties, is reasonable, and is achievable.

d. The schedule is to be updated monthly and accompanied by a variance schedule chart that will be reviewed at each progress meetings. The schedule must show the critical path, current and baseline schedules, and the current date. Options to mitigate schedule variances from the baseline schedule must be proposed to the City as part of the monthly submissions. Changes to the Project schedule must be approved by the City.

e. All change order requests must be submitted with a clear identification of impact to the overall Project schedule as well as to the implementation schedule for Solutions. A detailed description of the rationale for undertaking additional works and the impacts to the Project without the additional works must be provided as part of a change order request to justify any extra costs and/or schedule extension.

f. At the Project kick-off meeting, the Consultant shall provide a Project Management Plan (PMP) for review and approval by the City. The PMP shall include but not be limited to details on communication, scope and change management, time management, risk management, staff planning, budget control measures, dispute prevention and resolution, invoicing templates, health and safety, deliverable management, and quality management.

g. Progress meetings at monthly intervals are required for the Project. Meetings can be scheduled to coincide with the following milestones:

1. Start-up meeting with City staff to discuss and finalize the detailed work plan and schedule;

2. Preliminary Assessment and Flood Cluster Identification;

3. Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Modelling and Assessment;

4. Preferred Solutions Development;

5. Assignment Scope Development and Prioritization;

6. Draft and Final Technical Memos and Study Reports;

7. Preparation for public information sessions, and presentations to City of Toronto internal departments prior to the public information centre sessions; and a debriefing meeting after each PIE;

8. Submission of Draft and Final preliminary design reports.

h. Provide for six (6) additional meetings to meet with agencies (TRCA, MOECC, MNR, DFO, etc.) and City stakeholders which may include Councillors, specific flood community group, the Sewer Asset Planning unit of Toronto Water, District Operations, Parks, Forestry & Recreation, Facilities and Real Estate (where property and/or easement acquisition are required), Transportation, Development Engineering, etc. In these meetings, the Consultant is required to provide an overview of the studies and/or preliminary designs, present findings and proposed alternatives, and to seek feedback regarding the feasibility of recommendations;

VIEWING C

OPY




i. Organize and facilitate two (2) workshops with the City and the BFPP Program Management Consultant. The workshops may include topics such as modelling reviews, Solutions development, constructability reviews, and cost estimating, etc...

j. For all meetings and workshops, the Consultant is responsible for preparing an agenda, distributing the agenda in advance of meetings, and recording and distributing minutes to all attendees within five (5) days following each meeting.

k. During all components of the Project, the Consultant shall work collaboratively with City staff. The Consultant shall solicit input from the City’s Project Manager on all critical assumptions made in their analyses and efforts. The Consultant shall ensure that sufficient time is allowed for City’s input into the decision-making processes.

l. The Consultant is responsible to alert and discuss with the City any key assumptions that can affect results, conclusions, and development of Solutions; the Consultant shall be responsible for the validity, correctness, and accuracy of their work, correcting errors and omissions, and to conduct proper and rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC). The City Project team’s review is limited to whether the Terms of Reference requirements are met, not to the validity, correctness, and accuracy of the work by the Consultant. Checklists to be completed by the Consultant and submitted with each of the deliverables may be provided by the City during the Project.

m. The Consultant shall set up a web based Sharepoint repository where all technical memos, interim InfoWorks model files, ArcGIS data and shape files, PIE displays, notices, review comments and responses (in table format), meeting minutes, updated schedules, etc..., are centrally stored and accessible to the entire City Project team. The complete contents of the Sharepoint repository shall be provided to the City (on usb) at the completion of the Final Study Roport. Upon receipt, the City will upload the provided information into its own document management systems.

n. Occupational Health & Safety: The successful Consultant is responsible for meeting the requirements of the Occupational Health & Safety Act and the City's Health & Safety Manual, and the Consultant is to review their safe work procedures with the City prior to undertaking any fieldwork onsite.

o. Staff must be knowledgeable of the governing safety regulations including, but not limited to, Industrial Regulations, Construction Regulations, Regulation Respecting Asbestos on Construction Projects and in Building Repair Operations, Diving Operations, Designated Substances, WHMIS, Workplace Safety & Insurance Act, Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, Technical Standards & Safety Act, Highway Traffic Act, Fire Protection & Promotions Act, and X-Ray Safety.

p. Staff on-site must possess written proof of competency such as appropriate training and experience in health and safety related activities applicable to the Project (i.e. confined space entry, fall arrest, First Aid & CPR, Ladder & scaffolding training documentation, WHMIS training documentation, and any other appropriate certificate required to perform inspection work).

q. The Consultant is responsible for providing all safety equipment for the protection of their staff, including gas detection, safety retrieval devices, and any ancillary equipment for confined space entries (CSEs) required for inspection purposes. Certification in CSE is a pre-requisite and experience in the use of self-contained breathing apparatus is a requirement. A standard entry permit must be completed before any CSEs take place.

VIEWING C

OPY




2.5 ENGINEERING STUDIES / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (EA)

2.5.1 Appendix A.5 – includes the City’s general requirements for Environmental Assessments.

2.5.2 Appendix A.6 – includes the City’s general requirements for Engineering Studies.

2.6 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES

2.6.1 Appendix A.7 – includes the City’s general requirements for preliminary design engineering services.

a. In case of any discrepancies between Appendix A.7 and Section 2.6 of this RFP, Section 2.6 shall take precedence.

b. The following specific exceptions/modifications to Appendix A.7 are to be read in conjunction with the Appendix and include:

1. A.7.6.2 Noise Study – a noise study is not required as the base scope of work.

2. Change Appendix A.7.1.1.1 from “The City will provide copies of available record drawings, reports, and other documents pertaining to the program. The Consultant… …” to “The City will not provide copies of available record drawings, reports, and other documents”. The Consultant will be required to obtain existing background information, including but not limited to record drawings, reports and as-built documentation as part of the pre-design and detailed design work. This information is available in various formats from the City archives, offices and yards. The Consultant is responsible for visiting archives, offices and yards, reviewing the files and requesting and gathering any necessary information. The program information can be found in various City archive locations across the City. The Consultant shall verify the content of existing data and obtain updated information as necessary.

c. Additional requirements to Appendix A.7 are listed below, and within Sections 2.6.2 – 2.6.5.

1. Assist the City in meetings with property owners and/or the local councilors where new Permanent or Temporary Easements are required for the proposed Assignments.

2. Submit Technical Memoranda (TM) on major issues prior to preparing the predesign report. Include these TMs in the report appendices and summarize the key elements in the predesign report.

2.6.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

a. The preliminary design component of the Project is carried as a Provisional Item in this Project. If the Consultant fails to meet the formal baseline schedule for the study component submitted with the final TM#1, the City may choose not to proceed with the preliminary design component.

b. The Consultant will undertake the preliminary design work for the Assignments identified in TM#4 of the study component (see Section 2.3.13) and complete the PDR, which will include:

1. Field edit, review and confirmation of the existing site conditions with respect to the as-built drawings and background information

2. Hydraulic modeling work for each Assignment

3. Work related to identifying or confirming easement requirements

4. Work related to surveys and geotechnical/hydrogeological investigations

5. Update the Assignment cost estimate and cost per benefitting property analysis

6. Update the Assignment Scope Summary Document

VIEWING C

OPY




c. The Consultant is required to work with City staff to identify any existing operational constraints and issues via discussions with City department staff (e.g. Toronto Water, Transportation Services, Parks Forestry and Recreation, TTC). Moreover, recommendations for improvement are to be included in the overall work plan and pre-design reports. The following items should be discussed and confirmed in writing with City staff, as a minimum:

1. How to coordinate road repairs with other services (e.g. Transportation Services, TTC).

2. How to minimize traffic and pedestrian disruptions during construction.

3. How to minimize impacts on mature trees in the work areas.

4. How and when to notify affected residents and businesses.

5. How to optimize the construction of the Assignments with regards to seasonal impacts (e.g. construction can be stalled/stopped during winter months, work near watercourses).

6. How to coordinate construction in the downtown core while accommodating traffic congestion, local land use, streetcar and pedestrian traffic.

7. How to collect the existing as built information in the most efficient manner from City staff. The Consultant is responsible for gathering the required as-built data for Assignments. For reference, this information is located in six separate City locations and in various formats.

d. As-built drawings and other information of similar nature, including information provided in the current RFP, are not to be solely relied upon for the preliminary design. The Consultant shall be responsible for verifying this information in the field prior to preliminary design development. Any discrepancies or conflicts are to be reported to the City to allow information to be updated.

e. The Consultant will provide a written risk evaluation for each identified Assignment, within the preliminary design reports, so that appropriate mitigation strategies can be incorporated in the design of the works, and so that the detailed design efforts can be appropriately scoped by the City. The risk evaluation will build on the constructability report prepared as part of TM#3.

f. The Consultant will produce a preliminary design report as detailed in Section 2.6.6 of this RFP. It is expected that approximately three PDRs (prepared in accordance with Appendix A.7) are submitted per Study Area. Each PDR may contain multiple Schedule A+ Assignments. Each Assignment classified as a Schedule B or C works shall have a separate pre-design report. The PDR will include:

1. Hydraulic Modeling

2. Tree Inventory

3. Constructability Reviews, based on the Field Investigation, Engineering Survey, SUE, significant tree identification, and geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation as described in Section 2.6.6.

4. Preliminary design cost estimate

5. Updated cost per benefitting property analysis

6. The updated Assignment Scope Summary Document, which is a summary document created as part of TM#4 of the study component to summarize the basement flooding Solutions that form the Assignment, along with any additional scope.

2.6.3 PART A: DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW, MODELLING UPDATES

a. The following summarizes the roles and responsibilities of the Consultant as part of the performance of the data collection responsibilities during the preliminary design component.

VIEWING C

OPY




1. Gather and review all relevant information available from public records and City/MTO/other authority records or as-built drawings including previous studies, investigations, analysis and reports, including the list of information shown below in Section 2.6.3.b.3. The Consultant is responsible for gathering all the data from the various City sources and reviewing it for accuracy.

2. Undertake a Field Survey for each Assignment as detailed in this section and Appendix A.7.

3. Request, review and rationalize utility records from the City and Utility Companies.

4. Develop the scope of work for a full geotechnical and/or hydrogeological investigations as detailed in Section 2.6.3.k and Appendix A.7 and submit to City for approval. Undertake the geotechnical investigation and attach the geotechnical report to the PDR. Use the findings of the investigation to confirm the design.

5. Develop the required scope of work for the necessary field survey and SUE Level B. Undertake these surveys and submit the associated deliverables. Use the results of these surveys to update the models and base-plans for the drawings.

b. The City will provide the Consultant with the following support, upon request from the Consultant:

1. Provide a general review of submissions, within 3 weeks, for compliance with City Standards.

2. Review the survey, SUE, and geotechnical investigation information within 3 weeks.

3. Reasonable best efforts will be made by the City to provide access to the following information as it exists at the time of request for use by the Consultant in preparing the preliminary design; however the Consultant is ultimately responsible for collecting the information listed below:

a) Project Initiation Notices circulation list (if required) b) Current release of CADD standards (including digital file structure) c) Historical soil data, if and where applicable d) Available existing CCTV camera sewer inspection information within the Project area e) Available water and drain service information f) Available existing engineering as-built plans and record drawings g) Toronto Water Asset Geodatabase Information h) Topographical mapping i) Available utility mapping j) Property data mapping k) Survey & mapping specifications and requirements l) City of Toronto Design criteria m) Aerial mapping n) Horizontal and vertical control information o) All pertinent reports including EA documents, if available p) Standard document templates in Microsoft Word format q) All legal surveys.

c. Coordination with City staff and utility companies:

1. The Consultant must coordinate with the various City's District and Operation staff to collect various background information, as listed in Section 2.6.3.b.3.

2. The Consultant must coordinate with the utilities to obtain all relevant records, including circulation of the preliminary base plan.

VIEWING C

OPY




d. Collection and Review of Background Data

1. The Consultant must collect and review relevant background data as described below:

a) Undertake CCTV survey of existing storm and/or sanitary/combined sewers for a length of 200 meters downstream of the proposed Solutions, where such information is not available (as determined during the study component). The costs to perform CCTV inspections and produce the associated reports will be paid from the Provisional Allowance (see Section 5).

b) Gather and review all relevant information available from public records and City/MTO/Other authority records including as-built drawings and previous studies, investigations, analyses and reports. Review and confirm any existing field information provided by the City and/or other agencies, including topographic and utility system data. The Consultant shall contact utility companies and obtain all existing and proposed utility information from the utility owners. The Consultant shall field verify the supplied utility information, recommend necessary test pits and confirm utility information and/or conflicts as part of the SUE investigation.

c) Not all drawings will be digital and may need to be copied. The Consultant will be responsible for obtaining required documents and producing the copies as needed.

d) The Consultant will be required to obtain any additional documentation including, but not limited to, as-built sewer and water service records. This information may be in various formats from the City archives. The Consultant is responsible for attending at the archives, making the requests, and then gathering any necessary information. The information is contained at various City locations and the Consultant will be required to attend at each location to collect the required as-built drawings for each Assignment. The Consultant shall verify the content of existing data and obtain updated information as necessary.

e. Field Investigation

1. The Consultant will undertake a field investigation at the outset of this preliminary design component of the Project. This investigation will require the Consultant to perform a number of tasks, including:

a) Document the existing field conditions with digital photographs and maintain a photograph database. All photographs are to be labeled with location and date taken. All photographs are to be included in the PDR.

b) Note any potential costs related to the restoration of surface features including but not limited to landscaping, driveways, fences, for which impacts could be prevented at the design stage.

c) Confirm and document the presence and location of catch basins, sealed or unsealed maintenance holes in the Study Areas.

d) Document the location of reverse slope driveways e) Confirm the location of low points on the road f) Identify any re-grading of the road required to direct flow to proposed catch basins g) Identify properties/local business that may be affected by the proposed solution h) Document any large trees that might be affected by the proposed solution i) Document other factors which may impact the validity of the basement flooding solution

VIEWING C

OPY




j) Document the current road condition and any maintenance items that must be addressed as part of the contract. Quantify impacts in the right-of-way, including road surface, curbs, sidewalks, boulevards and driveway aprons and categorize the work based on rationale. For example, estimated quantity of impacts required as a result of sewer replacements and estimated quantity of impacts required for maintenance of transportation infrastructure.

2. Refer to Appendix E.8 for a sample linear works checklist that is expected to be used by the Consultant to document the field investigation activities completed as part of preliminary design. The Consultant is expected to update this checklist to suit the needs of this Project.

f. The Consultant is to submit Traffic Management Plans and implement them, as approved by the City, whenever movement of traffic or traffic safety is impacted by the Consultant’s operations. The Traffic Management Plan shall conform to the Ministry of Transportation – Ontario Traffic Manual Book 7.

g. SUE Quality Level B, as defined in Appendix A.7, is required for this Project. The Consultant will perform the following:

1. The Consultant is required to submit a proposal, for each Assignment, for review and approval by the City prior to proceeding with any field works. The field works shall commence as soon as possible after receipt of notification of acceptance of the SUE proposal for each Assignment and complete the work within the time indicated in the submitted proposal. Consultant is to provide Traffic Management Plans and implement, as approved by the City, whenever movement of traffic or traffic safety is impacted by the Consultant’s operations. The Traffic Management Plan shall conform to the Ministry of Transportation – Ontario Traffic Manual Book 7. The Consultant shall also engage pay duty police, when required by the Ministry of Transportation, payment shall be made at cost, and will be paid from the Provisional Allowance (see Section 5). If additional investigation (SUE Level A) is required, this will be determined as part of the preliminary design and the investigation requirements shall be outlined in the preliminary design report.

2. Review the available SUE information and prepare and submit a l proposal on the recommended extent and quantity of SUE investigation for each Assignment area

3. Obtain all necessary permits from the City and/or local utilities. If works must be performed on private property, the Consultant shall obtain prior written permission from the property owner for ingress to and use of their property, including names and telephone numbers of contact personnel should notification prior to entry be necessary.

4. Include all coordination activities

5. Undertake all requirements of SUE Quality Level C and D, as defined in Appendix A.7

6. Associated traffic management plans; and,

7. Report and drawing preparation.

8. SUE Investigations will be paid for from the Provisional Allowance (see Section 5).

h. Tree Inventory

1. The Consultant is to coordinate and work in direct consultation with City Parks, Forestry and Recreation to ensure that all issues related to the City's Tree Protection Policy are addressed.

2. For each Assignment, the Consultant will be required to obtain the services of a certified arborist to conduct a tree inventory.

VIEWING C

OPY




3. The tree inventory will include the collection of the following information, which is to be recorded in tables and shown graphically on basemaps or aerial photos, for all trees within the limits of construction and within 10 metres outside of the limits of construction: Characteristics including location (including tree tag# and street address), species (common and botanical names), size (diameter at breast height, drip line radius and tree protection zone), health (disease and infestations), condition (crown vigor) and structural integrity. Any trees of significance (based on size, species and condition) or species of concern (e.g. Kentucky Coffee Tree and Butternut) will be noted in the tables and graphical representations for preservation priority and tree protection measures.

4. As part of the tree inventory, the Consultant is required to tag with reference numbers all trees located in parks, ravines or on arterial roads. Trees located on residential streets within the Right-Of-Way, do not require tags; the associated street address can be used as the reference identification.

5. All tree inventories will be paid from the Provisional Allowance (see Section 5).

i. The Consultant will be required to complete an Engineering Survey including the following:

1. Provide a complete Engineering Survey within the road allowance for the preparation of engineering drawings. The Engineering Survey shall be a full topographical survey with 0.005 of a meter accuracy, from property line to property line for the entire length of the Assignment location and, as a minimum, provide the information detailed in Appendix A.7 and the City's Engineering Survey Standards.

2. The Engineering Survey shall follow good survey practice, including but not limited to obtaining elevations at least every 20 metres if a more stringent requirement (i.e. alignment changes, and low points) is not identified in Survey Standard.

3. Confirm location and elevation of all curb, curb and gutter, sidewalk, driveways, bike paths, ditches, pavement marking and other road features.

4. Confirm location of all utility surface features.

5. Confirm location of all shrubs, planting beds, trees, including species, diameter of trunk, and drip lines, fences, parking pavement marking and any other landscaping features such as berms etc.

6. Confirm location and size of bus shelters, benches planters, and other street furniture.

7. Confirm top of lid elevation for all maintenance holes, catchbasins, valve chambers, valve boxes, and all other service structures.

8. Confirm location and elevation of all fire hydrants, if applicable.

9. Confirm type, location and height of retaining walls and fences.

10. Confirm surface material (e.g. asphalt, concrete, pavers, sod, etc.)

11. Any other surface features that may affect constructability or have significant impact on construction/restoration cost.

12. The surveyors must have the capacity, both labor and experience, to provide engineering surveys, as required for this program.

13. The Engineering Survey is to be tied to the City's geodetic datum, horizontal and vertical control points, which will be provided by the City at the Consultant's request.

14. The Engineering Survey shall conform to the City's “Engineering Survey Standards for Consultants” and “Engineering Survey MicroStation V8 Graphic Specification” (City's Survey Standards) and shall indicate the appropriate CAD layers, symbols, and standard nomenclature that are to be used for all drawings.

VIEWING C

OPY




15. Upon completion of the Engineering Survey and processing, the Consultant shall complete quality control review, utilizing the City provided spec checker, to ensure compliance with the City Survey Standard and provide the City with a certificate of conformance (spec checker text log).

16. Engineering Survey will be paid for from the Provisional Allowance (see Section 5).

j. Rationalization of Source Mapping Data Sets (as needed)

1. The following table identifies the file data sets that the Consultant shall obtain from the City, for integration and the development of a composite base plan of existing conditions. Each of the following data sets will need to be compiled and verified to develop the composite base map, this mapping will be used by the Consultant for planning purposes (e.g. utility circulations) until the engineering field survey is integrated, finalizing the base plan.

TABLE 2.5 RATIONALIZATION OF SOURCE DATA SETS FOR DESIGN

Source Data Set

Reference File per Data Source and Content File is Reference to

Design Drawing Files

Data Sets from Capital Works Download

1. Address Available in all Districts and elements in file shall be altered and moved as required for drawing clarity and copied into the Property Street Line (PSL) reference file in conformance with the City’s CADD Specification Manual PSL level designations. (This Information is reliable and accurate).

YES

2. Parcel Available in all Districts and elements in file shall be altered and moved as required for drawing clarity and copied into ‘PSL’ reference file in conformance with the City’s CADD Specification Manual PSL level designations. (This information is reliable and accurate).

YES

3. Enterprise Stereo Model (ESM) aerial topographic mapping

Available in all Districts for preliminary design as a reference file. This data set is secondary to any redundant features identified in engineering survey.

The accuracy of this planimetric data is approximately +/- 0.50 metres and is superseded by the Consultant Engineering Survey data. Subsequently, line work is required to be modified in order to transition and meet survey related features. Cells and line styles are at 1:500 scale and are required to be converted to adhere to a 1:200 scale design environment. This information is to be used for planning purposes and to supplement the information outside the survey boundaries (street line to street line).

YES

4. Toronto Water Division Sewer And

This information is available in all Districts and is used as a source of existing City infrastructure and any discrepancies between this data and surveyed information shall be resolved by the Consultant. This data is available in all areas except the former City of Toronto, where DMOG is used. This data

NO

VIEWING C

OPY




Water network data

set shall not be copied onto the Underground Services (UGS) reference file but described into the USG in conformance with the City CADD Specifications Manual.

5. DMOG – (Digital Map Owner's Group) Utility Mapping

Utility information on underground levels is copied into ‘UGS’ reference file and must be converted by the consultant to conform to the City’s CADD Specification Manual UGS level designations. A conversion tool will be provided to the consultant at the outset of the program. (Note: This data set should be used only to validate other data sources and has not been verified by the City). This data is available to all Districts; however, this only pertains to works located within the former City of Toronto limits. In addition, surface feature levels (planimetrics) from this data set are not used and have the lowest priority of data integrity. Therefore, underground utility and related data shall be modified and adjusted to fit with Engineering Survey data. Text and elements that form part of this reference file are required to be altered and moved as necessary for drawing clarity. Updated Utility Data obtained from other sources, shall be added to this reference file in conformance with the CADD standards Multi-line definitions. Any identified Easement (EAS) information series shall be placed in the ‘PSL’ or ‘EAS’ reference file(s). Easement info. series are in the PSL reference files

YES

ImageSite Data

Historic Plan and Profile Information

This information is used as a source of existing City infrastructure and validated through Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE), Utility circulation mark-ups and or engineering surveys.

NO

Laserfiche Servicing Data

Sewer and Water Services data (cards scan or hard copy by address)

Servicing data to be manually inputted into Design reference file and in conformance with the City’s CADD Specification Manual.

NO

SUE Data SUE file is used as a resource data set necessary for both validating existing utilities and updating utility data. If required, SUE data is copied into ‘UGS’ reference file in conformance with the City’s CADD Specification Manual UGS level designations.

YES

Utility Mark-ups

This information is used to inform and obtain utility comments on existing utility infrastructure data and co-ordinate any planned utility work. Any identified differences shall be resolved by the Consultant.

NO

VIEWING C

OPY




Engineering Survey

The engineering survey file is referenced and replaces all other source and/or underlying features. It also is the reference file used to complete the realignment of all other source data with connecting and adjoining features. Survey levels are not to be copied into any Design File.

YES

Tree Inventory

The Tree Inventory file is referenced and shall include the Tree identification number (Tag or address), tree protection zone and dripline. Trees of significance must be denoted.

YES

VIEWING C

OPY




2. As outlined in Table 2.5, the Consultant shall rationalize the preliminary base plan with the engineering survey. All base plan and design drawings must meet the requirements of the City's CADD Specification Manual.

3. Upon completion of rationalization and preparation of the base plan, the Consultant shall complete a quality control review, utilizing the City provided spec checker, to ensure compliance with the City CADD Specifications Manual and provide the City with a Certificate of Conformance (spec checker text log).

k. Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Investigation. The Consultant shall perform the following geotechnical investigations unless otherwise indicated:

1. Prior to performing any field work for the geotechnical investigations, the Consultant must submit a detailed geotechnical proposal including the proposed scope of work for the geotechnical investigation, and obtain written approval to proceed from the City. One geotechnical / hydrogeological report is required for each preliminary design report, which may contain several Assignments. The field works shall commence as soon as possible after receipt of notification of acceptance of the geotechnical proposal for each PDR. Complete the work within the time indicated in the submitted proposal. The geotechnical proposal must include, at a minimum, the following items:

a) Borehole location plan and summary table including anticipated depths, field testing, piezometer locations, etc.

b) Summary of proposed laboratory testing and analysis. c) Schedule. d) Traffic control plans/sketches. e) Summary of required approvals, permits, and access requirements. f) Health and Safety.

2. Conduct geotechnical investigations and prepare one report for each preliminary design report, which may contain several Assignments, in accordance with Appendix A.7. The cost associated with the disposal of excess soil material generated during the drilling activities and borehole restoration is to be included in the unit rates for the boreholes. This cost shall also include all survey work to locate the location and elevation of the boreholes (as part of layout and to reflect the information on the design drawings), and restoration of the borehole locations in accordance with the requirements of the cut permits obtained by the Consultant.

3. The geotechnical investigations shall be supplemented as required with additional explorations to verify consistent conditions within a critical component zone and/or as recommended by the Consultant and approved by the City. Additional boreholes may be required to confirm conditions if two adjacent boreholes show differing information. The Consultant is to obtain written authorization from the City prior to completing any additional work.

4. Prepare borehole plans for each Assignment, obtain permits (including but not limited to road cut permits) as required for soil investigations, coordinate and perform/supervise soil environmental investigation activities in the field and incorporate all necessary soil and disposal practices and procedures required by the regulatory agencies into the contract documents. The Consultant is responsible for satisfying all permit conditions.

VIEWING C

OPY




5. The Consultant shall select the location of boreholes, obtain all utility clearances and locates to avoid conflicts with above or underground utilities prior to performing the work, distribute boreholes evenly across the entire length of Assignment locations. The quantity and depth of boreholes for each location shall be determined by the Consultant to ensure the required geotechnical information is obtained to successfully complete the design and construction works.

6. The City does not typically locate sewer laterals as part of the utility clearance process. The Consultant is to take all reasonable precautions and conventional practice to not damage sewer laterals as part of its investigation. If sewer laterals are damaged, the Consultant must contact the City immediately so that the City can arrange for repairs, and advise the property owner(s) immediately. The Consultant is fully responsible for any damage to any other utility.

7. Where boreholes or test pits are located near or on public roads, the Consultant shall be required to arrange the geotechnical investigation equipment so as to provide minimum inconvenience to traffic. Traffic management, if required, shall conform to the Ontario Traffic Management Manual Book 7 (See Section 7). The Consultant shall also engage a pay duty police officer(s), as required, for control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as required by applicable standards.

8. The Consultant is to keep a continuous log of materials encountered during the advancement of each borehole. All sample descriptions in the report shall follow the Canadian Foundations Engineering Manual soil classification system. The borehole logs and reports, among other relevant information, shall include the requirements detailed in Appendix A.7

9. Piezometers are to be installed in boreholes that are not dry upon completion of drilling. Water inside a borehole shall be pumped out and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations before a piezometer is installed prior to backfilling. The Consultant is responsible for disposing of the surplus water or dewatered volumes in accordance with City sanitary and storm discharge criteria and associated permits. The Consultant shall return to the site to record the free standing ground water level inside the borehole after 24 hours. Boreholes within roadways where piezometers or monitoring wells are installed must be able to withstand traffic, and have a removable protective cover installed flush with the surface to prevent any safety concerns. The borehole shall be backfilled after the free standing ground water level has been measured. Each piezometer assembly shall include a proper piezometer tip, an appropriate length plastic tubing of 12.7 mm outside diameter, couplings, and protective plastic caps.

10. The type and quantity of laboratory tests for each Assignment shall be determined by the Consultant to ensure that the required geotechnical information is obtained to successfully complete the design and construction works.

11. When a pervious storm sewer system is identified in the scope of an Assignment, complete the following hydrogeological testing as a minimum: in situ infiltration testing, to be performed in a separate 5 metre deep borehole by inserting a perforated casing with the top 1.5 m perforations being blocked off. Fill the hole with water and measure the time required for the water to infiltrate into the soil.

12. The Consultant is to undertake soil chemical analysis for each of the proposed Assignment locations as detailed in Appendix A.7.

VIEWING C

OPY




13. Laboratory testing of soils ground water samples shall be performed in accordance with MOECC standards and regulations, namely Ontario Regulation 153/04 (as amended) and Soil and Ground Water Standards and Ontario Regulation 558/00 under the Environmental Protection Act. Ground water samples shall also be tested to adhere to the City's Sewers Bylaw, By-law No. 457-2000 found in Chapter 681 of the Municipal Code. The Sewers Bylaw sets limits on the heavy metals and toxic organic compounds in wastewater discharge to the sanitary and storm sewers and natural watercourses.

14. Where required, asphalt cores shall be analyzed to determine asbestos content as per O. Reg. 278/05 utilizing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Test Method EPA/600/R-93/116: Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials (June 1993). The Consultant shall review the City's Asbestos Locations map to determine if asbestos analysis of cores is required for each Assignment and document the decision in the geotechnical proposal. Asbestos analysis shall be typically done on a composite of all asphalt layers found in a core sample. If asbestos is detected in the composite sample or if asbestos is already suspected in a specific layer, then separate analysis of each distinguishable asphalt layer may be required. Asbestos concentrations shall be reported as a percent by weight to less than 0.25% asbestos content and shall include an indication of the asbestos fibre type. Asbestos fibre analysis shall be done using polarized light microscopy (PLM). Asbestos fibre analysis method shall be based on EPA 600 or approved equivalent.

15. At a minimum, in the Geotechnical Investigation Report, provide recommendations to address following:

a) Pipe bedding (materials) requirements with respect to City's standards. b) Dewatering requirements describing available methods including well points, if

required. c) Bedrock blasting and removal, if required. d) Type of shoring system, methods of tunneling, or jacking and boring (trenchless

technology) or open cut trench excavation. e) Placement depth of layers, and compaction specification for use of native backfill. f) Soil parameters to be used for calculation of thrust blocks and restrained joints

(including coefficient of friction, shear angle, and bearing capacity). g) Concerns in relation to trench bottom uplift. h) Disposal of the material off site based on the outcome of the chemical analysis of the

soil. i) Removal and disposal of asbestos containing asphalt, if present. j) Cost effective life cycle pavement design based on the City's Pavement Structural

Design Guideline and suitability of materials for backfilling purposes. Traffic volumes (AADT) required for the pavement design will be supplied by the City.

k) Pavement re-surfacing and reconstruction requirements, based on existing conditions and construction impacts.

16. The Geotechnical Investigation Reports shall meet the following requirements:

a) Document all findings from the geotechnical investigation, including borehole log report, chemical analyses results, comments and recommendations shall be presented in a geotechnical investigation report.

b) For each geotechnical investigation, the Consultant shall submit to the City's Project Manager a Geotechnical Investigation Report documenting all investigation data, results and recommendations.

VIEWING C

OPY




17. The Consultant shall confirm the activities related to boreholes and boreholes preparation conform with OHSA requirements, including but not limited to, how it pertains to the requirement of the Constructor.

18. Ensure that all geotechnical report recommendations are incorporated in the preliminary design report.

19. The Consultant is to deliver a separate geotechnical report for each preliminary design report.

20. The cost for all geotechnical / hydrogeological field and laboratory work shall be paid from the Provisional Allowance (see Section 5).

l. Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment

1. Where the EA has identified a cultural heritage impact, the Consultant will be required to coordinate and oversee Cultural Heritage Resource assessments within City of Toronto heritage properties, archaeological sites, and lands of archaeological potential.

2. This assessment must be done in accordance with the requirements outlined in Appendix A-2.

3. The assessment must be conducted by a member of the Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Consultants.

4. The Consultant will be required to prepare a proposal for any required assessments, for review and approval by the City prior to proceeding with the work. All costs associated with Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment will be paid from a provisional allowance (See Section 5).

2.6.4 RAINFALL AND FLOW MONITORING – DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS (TM #5)

a. At the conclusion of the rainfall and/or sewer flow monitoring activities as described in a Study Area's rainfall and flow monitoring plan developed as part of TM#1, the Consultant shall review and analyze the integrity of all collected monitoring data (e.g., depth and velocity plots, shape, pattern, trend, scatter plots, etc.) for analyzing dry and wet weather flow characteristics. If requested, rainfall monitoring data collected by the City will be provided to the Consultant to support the analysis. The rainfall monitoring data will not have been reviewed by the City.

b. The Consultant shall submit TM#5 that shall contain plots of all of the flow monitoring data collected in time versus depth, velocity, and flow, and scatter plots of velocity versus depth to show that the data collected are of good quality. The technical memorandum shall include an evaluation of the monitor performance and suitability of results for model calibration. The City's minimum criteria for rain events and corresponding sewer flow monitoring data to be considered for model calibration is described in Section 2.6.5.f.

c. The Consultant shall add all raw and final data, collected site information and photographs, maintenance logs, and GIS file(s) containing site locations and pertinent site information (e.g. ID, Asset ID, type of monitor, sewer size, monitored direction relative to flow, installation date, removal date, etc.) to PKDBS.

d. Tasks for preparation of TM#5 shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

A Review and analyze data for quality/adequacy/suitability to support future calibration of the flood clusters originally identified as part of TM#1;

B Select and analyze the dry weather and wet weather characteristics and flow rates in the monitored areas for the storm, sanitary, combined sewer systems (e.g. tributary area, land use mix, 24-hour 7-day diurnal patterns, residential and commercial wastewater production rates, seasonal and inter-event base flows, slow and fast response inflow and infiltration characteristics, mass continuity of flows measured, data

VIEWING C

OPY




consistency, volumetric runoff coefficients for each rain event, and comparison with typical values);

C Prepare tables that summarize the sanitary flows characteristics under dry and wet weather conditions: contributing area and land use mix, residential and commercial/institutional populations, wastewater production rates (in litres per capita per day), comparison with water consumption rates (in litres per capita per day), base flows (in litres per hectare) accounting for constant base wastewater flow, inflow/infiltration rates under dry and wet weather conditions (in litres per hectare), comparison with typical I/I values, etc.;

D Identify locations/subcatchments with high Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) source(s) in the sanitary sewer system using the rain and flow monitoring data;

E Prepare tables that summarize the storm flows characteristics under dry and wet weather conditions: contributing area and land use mix, dry weather base flows, wet weather volumetric runoff coefficients, comparison with typical storm sewer runoff values; and

F Identify rainfall events that meet the minimum criteria for local model calibration and/or verification as part of the preliminary design process (see Section 2.6.5.f for further details)

e. Data review and analysis of rainfall and flow monitoring data collected will be paid for as a provisional item (see Section 5).

2.6.5 ADDITIONAL MODELLING

a. The Consultant is expected to carry out additional modelling during preliminary design as follows:

1. To address any changes in the design and construction requirements based on the results of the SUE and engineering surveys, constructability issues and / or input from review/approval agencies and other stakeholders.

2. To analyze and recommend staging/sequencing for Assignments

3. To further develop the preliminary catchbasin control concepts and to define the exact locations, flow rates, and type of control for each of the related catchbasins.

b. Additional modelling will also be required to incorporate additional works (e.g. condition based sewer replacement) based on the review of sewers 200 meters downstream of the proposed Solutions.

c. Additional modelling shall conform to the requirements outlined in the Modelling Guidelines.

d. The Consultant shall update the PKDBS with new information collected through the surveys and data collection undertaken as part of preliminary design and submit it digitally, together with PDR.

e. Work completed to update the model as part of the preliminary design shall be documented in the preliminary design report. Submission of models shall form part of the digital deliverables, as outlined in Section 2.7

f. If a storm with a 1 hour rainfall accumulation of 40 mm or greater was captured during the flow monitoring period and the measured I/I rate was greater than 3 L/s/ha in the sanitary sewer, use the flow monitoring data to calibrate the model. If the measured I/I rate was less than 3 L/s/ha, no calibration is necessary. This task will be paid for as a provisional item (see Section 5).

g. Complete a sensitivity analysis on the basement flooding solution by applying an additional factor of 10% to each time step of the relevant hyetograph (e.g. the peak intensity of the May

VIEWING C

OPY




12, 2000 storm is 160.8 mm/hr, increasing that by 10% would be 176.9 mm/hr etc) used to size the infrastructure (i.e. May 12, 2000 for sanitary works and the 100 year storm for storm system works). If the HGL is deemed to be sensitive to the change, the Consultant shall recommend whether the pipe size should be increased as a factor of safety against uncertainty.

h. Refer to Appendix E.8 for a sample linear works checklist that is expected to be used by the Consultant to document the modelling activities completed as part of the preliminary design component. The Consultant is expected to update this checklist to suit the needs of this Project.

2.6.6 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT (PDR)

a. The City’s general requirements for preliminary design engineering services are included in Appendix A.7. The Consultant is responsible for reviewing this information and familiarizing themselves with the City’s requirements, and shall comply with them in their entirety. The following clauses provide additional specific requirements, and are to be read in conjunction with the Appendices. Where there is a conflict, the provisions in this section shall take precedence.

b. Refer to Appendix E.8 for a sample linear works checklist that is expected to be used by the Consultant to document the design, drawing preparation and reporting activities completed as part of the preliminary design component. The Consultant is expected to update this checklist to suit the needs of this Project.

c. The roles and responsibilities of the Consultant as part of the preliminary design component include, but are not limited to, the following:

VIEWING C

OPY




1. Coordination with stakeholders to establish a coordinated scope. This coordination effort is limited to Toronto Water's and Transportation Services approved capital programs (i.e. watermain and sewer rehabilitation and replacement capital plans, and road resurfacing or reconstruction needs) within the extents of basement flooding protection program Assignments only.

2. Prepare 30% design drawings that meet requirements outlined in the "Design Drawing Submission Requirements Checklist" included in Appendix E.8.

3. Complete and submit a preliminary design package.

4. Prepare cost estimates for the Basement Flooding Protection Program as well as all other state of good repair work components, using the Cost Estimating Tool provided by the City.

5. Confirm, and update, the cost per benefitting property calculations.

6. Identify required infrastructure relocations/impacts including, but not limited to, existing watermains, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, forcemains, laterals, etc., as well as the other non-City utilities, including, but not limited to, Toronto Hydro cables and ductbanks, natural gas lines, Bell Telephone pedestals and conduits, fibre optics or other telecom lines, etc.

7. Confirmation of constructability

8. Design of green infrastructure, such as bio-retention, for suitable areas, within the Assignments extents.

9. Refinement of the solution based on constructability and cost effectiveness

10. Identification of Approvals/Permitting requirements.

11. Compliance with the minimum milestone expectations identified in Appendix A.4.

12. QA/QC, ensure all submissions are checked for completion and accuracy

13. Update the Assignment Scope Management Document created as part of the TM#4 portion of the Study.

d. The primary focus of the preliminary design component is to finalize the required scope and select the best value design solution for each of the Assignments. It is expected that approximately three PDRs (prepared in accordance with Appendix A.7) are submitted per Study Area. Each PDR may contain multiple Schedule A+ Assignments. Each Assignment classified as a Schedule B or C works shall have a separate pre-design report. The key issues to be addressed for each identified assignment are as follows.

1. Confirmation of Constructability for Assignments, which are to be implemented in stages. The Consultant shall complete modeling to understand and present the staging plan, and to confirm that any interim conditions do not result in adverse effects on the system(s). Hydraulic analysis shall be used to demonstrate that adverse conditions are not being created. The PDR shall reflect Assignment implementation in stages, and shall identify all necessary steps for construction of the staged efforts, including, but not limited to, MOECP submission, tendering, site services, construction contract administration, and warranty period inspection work. The Consultant shall allow for up to 15% of Assignments to be staged.

2. The Consultant's confirmation of constructability must address the following issues as a minimum:

a) Confirm field conditions with respect to conflicts with existing utilities (including but not limited to gas, telecommunications, power, etc.), services (including but not limited to watermains, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, force mains, lateral service connections, etc.). In order to confirm the constructability the Consultant must review the field

VIEWING C

OPY




investigation, engineering survey work, SUE investigations and geotechnical / hydrogeological investigation.

b) Identify any required utility relocations including, but not limited to, existing watermains, sewers, force mains, laterals, storm sewers, etc. as well as the other non-City utilities including but not limited to hydro cables, natural gas lines, telecommunications conduits and infrastructure.

c) When new easements are required for the proposed Assignments, the Consultant is to have at least one meeting with the affected property owners and/or the local Councillor before an alternative design solution is explored. The decision to eliminate the needs of an easement by adopting an alternative design solution remains as a decision taken by the City. Costs associated with such easement investigations will be paid from a provisional allowance (see Section 5).

d) Coordination with other groups for tank, pond, and/or sewer location and land restoration requirements, including City Parks staff (such as restoration of recreational facilities), Hydro One, Toronto Hydro, TRCA, and any other notable public/private stakeholders.

e) Seasonal construction limitations (including work near schools and in parks). f) A tree impact assessment including a street-by-street quantification of all tree impacts

and the identification of all significant trees and the efforts made to refine the solution in order to minimize or eliminate impacts to significant trees.

g) The Consultant is to produce a PDR for each Assignment, in which the above issues are documented and recommendations are provided such that the proposed scope of detailed design includes a solution that is constructible and cost-effective. The PDR must also include an approach to address issues that arise with regard to encroachment on public areas and the impact of mature trees in the construction areas.

3. The refinement of solution by the Consultant must address the following issues as a minimum. This information is to be included in the PDRs.

a) Coordination with Toronto Water and Transportation Services regarding construction timing and coordination/adjustments in scope, related to other scheduled City works in the proposed construction area. These other groups may request that additions including but not limited to road maintenance, road beautification, watermain replacement, sanitary sewers replacement be added to the scope. The PDR is to capture any such requests and delineate the costs from the cost estimate for the BFPP works.

b) Review CCTV reports of existing storm and/or sanitary/combined sewers for a length of 200 meters downstream of the proposed Assignments and propose prioritized maintenance and/or "like-for-like" replacements, where 10% or more of the pipes cross-sectional area is not available for conveyance.

c) Identify operation and maintenance requirements for the Assignments, complete with an average annual estimate of operating costs where the proposed works are non-linear works.

d) Identify how to minimize disruptions to the affected community. e) Identify the extents of the roadway that needs to be rebuilt. f) Identify the extents of any other sewer services that need to be replaced. g) Replace all substandard water services. h) Replace all sanitary and combined sewer services connected to a sanitary or combined

sewer that is to be installed or replaced as part of an Assignment.

VIEWING C

OPY




i) As part of the PDR, the Consultant will also review the inlet controls proposed as part of TM#3. The scope in reference to catch basin inlet control shall include as a minimum:

e. Determination of the actual catchbasins where the controls are to be installed (hydraulic model aggregates catchbasins and assigns them to the nearest manhole).

f. Determination of the inlet control sizing.

g. Confirmation of the latest standards used by the City for inlet control devices.

1. Implementation of Green Infrastructure with BFPP Assignments.

a) The Consultant shall perform the following tasks, in accordance with the City's Green Streets Technical Guidelines, to implement green infrastructure together with BFPP Assignments.

b) The Consultant shall overlay, using GIS, the recommended Assignments with the potential green infrastructure locations provided by the City. Based on this overlay, the City will determine where such infrastructure is to be considered and included within preliminary designs.

c) The Consultant shall review and familiarize themselves with the latest version of Toronto Green Streets Technical Guidelines and use them to select the appropriate Green Infrastructure options to be included in the preliminary design.

2. Coordination with the relevant internal (City) and external stakeholders is a critical component. The Consultant shall meet with City representatives and external stakeholders a minimum of one time during the pre-design for each Assignment in order to coordinate major construction activities.

3. The Consultant must prepare the Utility Circulation Notices, send them to the appropriate internal and external stakeholders, and track all issues related to the Utility Circulation Notices. The Consultant will identify and carry out any key interfaces/discussions required for feasibility and design development with the City of Toronto, MTO, TRCA, utility companies and any other private or public authorities that have jurisdiction over land affected by Assignments in the preliminary design report(s).

4. The Consultant may be required to prepare for and attend additional meetings with stakeholders beyond the one (1) meeting noted above. The City has included a Provisional Cash Allowance to account for this effort (See Section 5).

SUMMARY OF PROJECT SUBMISSIONS

2.7.1 Table 2.6 summarizes the major Project submissions and series of technical memorandum submissions. The Consultant may propose to submit additional technical memorandums and/or data depending on the plan of delivery for the Project. The Consultant shall note that other deliverables are also required, as specified within this document.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 2.6 - Major Project Submissions – Study Component

Submissions Number of Drafts Number of Final Paper

Copies

Monthly Project Update, including schedule variance chart N/A

Technical Memorandum #1: Preliminary Assessment and Flood Cluster Identification

2

Technical Memorandum #2: Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Modelling and Assessment + Draft PKDBS + Infoworks models

2

Technical Memorandum #3: Preferred Solutions Development + Infoworks models

2

Technical Memorandum #4: Assignment Scope Development and Prioritization

2

Draft and Final Study Report for each Study Area including the model for preferred Solutions, the updated PKDBS, and a copy of the Sharepoint repository.

1 2 (+ 2 USB

Drives)

2.7.2 Each Study Area requires a separate submission for each TM and the Study Report.

2.7.3 It is expected that approximately two draft submissions will be required for each TM and the Study Report to address City's comments. The first submission of each shall include two hard copies and a digital submission. The second submission shall be in digital format only, including a copy of the document with tracked changes from the first submission. The dates of the various submissions shall be tracked in the PKDBS.

2.7.4 The City will provide written comments to each submission in a standard template. The Consultant shall respond to each comment, in writing, indicating clearly, how the comment will be addressed / incorporated, whether more information is required, or provide reasons why the comment is not applicable. The response to the City comments shall be provided within one week of receiving the comments.

2.7.5 Additional re-submissions of Project deliverables that may be required due to City's comments not being addressed will not constitute grounds for additional effort or schedule extension requests.

2.7.6 Two (2) USB Drives are to be submitted with the Final Study Report containing all Project data, including all Technical Memos and reports, InfoWorks models, and PKDBS.

2.7.7 The City will provide to the Consultant a prototype of a Project Knowledgebase Database System (PKDBS). Geospatial data within the PKDBS shall be in ESRI geodatabase format. The Consultant shall review the prototype and further develop the prototype to a final product.

a. The Consultant shall maintain, expand and update regularly the PKDBS until the end of the Project.

b. The Consultant shall prepare a data dictionary (data definition) of the final version of the PKDBS and submit to the City. The data dictionary must clearly define every data attribute, data format, etc.

c. The Consultant shall store all information/data/knowledge such as collected data (both georeferenced data and non-georeferenced data), information/data/knowledge from the field

VIEWING C

OPY




survey and investigation program, results of analysis and modelling, photographs in the PKDBS. All data must go through a data cleansing process to eliminate errors and duplications.

d. The Consultant shall develop database queries and geo-processing tasks to facilitate use of the PKDBS. All queries and geo-processing scripts must be stored in ESRI ArcMap for use in ArcMap v10.2 and later.

e. The Consultant shall ensure the PKBDS is always up-to-date and submit the draft version together with TM#2 and the final version together with the draft Study Report. The Consultant shall be prepared to submit PKDBS to the City within five (5) business days upon request.

f. The Consultant shall conduct Quality Assurance/Quality Control of the PKDBS.

Table 2.7: Summary of Deliverables - Preliminary Design Component

Number of Drafts

Number of Final Copies

Hard Copies Required

Soft Copy Format

Submissions per Study Area

Technical Memorandum #5: Rainfall and Flow Monitoring in Flood Clusters

2 1 Yes PDF, FM/RG Data

PDR Model + Final PKDBS 1 1 No Compact transferable file

Submissions for Each Preliminary Design Report

Engineering and SUE Surveys with Certificate of Conformance

0 1 No Native

Geotechnical & Hydrogeological Report

1 3 Yes PDF

Arborist Report 1 3 Yes PDF

Preliminary Design Report 2 3 Yes PDF, native and PDF for drawing

2.7.8 The Consultant shall prepare and submit each PDR in accordance with Appendix A.7 and Section

2.6. A draft and final report submission are required.

2.7.9 The Consultant shall add all raw and final data, collected site information and photographs, maintenance logs, and GIS file(s) containing site locations and pertinent site information (e.g. ID, Asset ID, type of monitor, sewer size, monitored direction relative to flow, installation date, removal date, etc.) to PKDBS.

2.7.10 The Consultant is expected to prepare approximately three PDRs per Study Area. Dependent upon the sizing of individual Assignments, each PDR may contain multiple Schedule A/A+ Assignments.

2.7.11 Each Assignment classified as a Schedule B or C works shall have a separate pre-design report. Each PDR shall address issues described in Section 2.6.

VIEWING C

OPY




2.7.12 Each PDR must summarize the Assignments, activities, problems, potential conflicts and proposed resolution, design assumptions and preliminary design calculations, and construction cost estimates for the preliminary designs. Each PDR must identify potential detailed design challenges, including but not be limited to:

a. The need for easements or property acquisition,

b. Impacts on the City's and TTC infrastructure,

c. Required approvals, including but not limited to TRCA,

d. Potential interference with utilities,

e. Tables, basemaps and aerial photos collected through the tree inventory, and an assessment of tree impacts and appropriate restoration planning (where applicable). Where the Assignment includes work in a park or a ravine, the preliminary design report will identify the need for a landscape architect as part of the detailed design team.

f. The PDR shall identify potential challenges that may be encountered during design arising from data collection. Locations where SUE Quality Level A investigations should be performed, as a result of information collected while performing SUE Quality B investigations, shall be recommended.

g. Additional specialized investigation required by any of the permitting agencies.

h. Update the Assignment Scope Summary Document.

2.7.13 The Engineering Survey and SUE survey shall be submitted by the Consultant in digital format in accordance with City Survey Standards, as well as, in a hard copy drawing format, stamped by a Professional Engineer licensed to practice in Ontario. The Engineering Survey shall be in conformance with City Survey Standards and the requirements detailed in Section 2.6.3.i and Appendix A.7 of this RFP. The engineering survey package shall include all deliverables listed and described in Appendix G of Engineering Survey Standards for Consultants.

2.7.14 The PDR will include drawings that meet the requirements of the CADD Specifications Manual. The Consultant shall complete a quality control review, utilizing the City provided spec checker, to ensure compliance with the City CADD Specifications Manual and provide the City with a Certificate of Conformance (spec checker text log). The drawings will include:

a. Drawing sheets to be established in plan & profile with all existing information including utilities. (Ensure information from Utility Circulation & Survey is incorporated. Identify and show size and material of existing mains, service connections (i.e. leads), manhole and Catch basin chambers).

b. Drawings shall meet the 30% design drawings requirements, as outlined in the "Design Drawing Submission Requirements Checklist" included in Appendix E.8.

c. Complete Surround (title block), show property lines, street names, chainage/stationing, north arrow, key plans.

d. Assignment limits on plan.

e. Borehole information on plan.

f. All trees on plan, including tag number, tree protection zone, drip line and note all significant trees.

g. Prepare a separate drawing that documents the current condition of the right of way, including road cracking, broken, pitted, raised or damaged sidewalks and curbs and dimensions of all existing utility cuts.

2.7.15 The PDRs must include an approach to address issues regarding encroachment on public areas and the impact of and on mature trees in the construction areas.

VIEWING C

OPY




2.7.16 As part of the PDR the Consultant is to provide cost estimates for each work type within the Assignment(s) in order to identify that cost to each Client Division including but not limited to:

a. Basement flooding upgrades,

b. Water service replacement,

c. Sewer or watermain state of good repair,

d. Permanent restoration associated with the different Toronto Water work types,

e. Transportation maintenance repairs, and

f. Transportation utility cuts, and,

g. Transportation state of good repair work,

h. Upgrades to accommodate population growth.

2.7.17 The Consultant must provide an estimated construction timeline and budget / cash flow forecast for the Assignments and individual work types bundled as part of a contract. Costs are to be broken down to clearly distinguish work that is associated with each of the Client Division sections funding the efforts. In all cases, where conflicts exist with other City divisions’ components, the existing infrastructure in the area of disturbed by standalone underground renewal works must be restored/upgraded to a state of good repair. Costs initially estimated in the study component of the Project must be updated by the Consultant during the preliminary design using the Cost Estimating Tool provided by the City.

2.7.18 For preliminary alignments that pose a conflict with utilities or other municipal infrastructure, the Consultant shall prepare a composite utility relocation/adjustment plan including municipal infrastructure (e.g. sidewalks, hydrants, watermains, storm sewers, sanitary sewers. It is the responsibility of the Consultant, once they obtain information on the location of utility infrastructure resulting from circulations, to ensure information is reflected accurately on engineering drawings in order to avoid conflicts during construction.

2.7.19 A digital copy (compact transferable file) of the InfoWorks modeling is to be provided to the City with the draft and final PDRs. The Consultant shall update the PKDBS that was created during the study component with information collected through Data Collection and Flow Monitoring efforts.

2.7.20 All information supplied by the Consultant is considered to be the unrestricted property of the City of Toronto. The Consultant shall provide copies of all deliverables as indicated in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 for each Project Bundle.

2.8 INNOVATION AND VALUE ADDED

2.8.1 The City is interested in innovation and will consider alternative approaches in the execution of the Project. Techniques and approaches that improve schedule delivery and/or cost of delivery best align with the Basement Flooding Protection Program's goals.

2.8.2 Alternatives presented by the Proponent, but not specifically requested by the City, will be evaluated in accordance with Sections 3.4.9 and 4.

2.8.3 Any alternative proposed must be of sufficient detail to allow the City to understand the merit(s) of the alternative and benefit(s) to the City. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any alternative and is under no obligation to consider any alternative.

2.8.4 Identify the costs for these items separately from the base scope, where applicable, in the Cost of Services envelope.

VIEWING C

OPY




SECTION 3 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION 3.1 SUBMISSION OVERVIEW

3.1.1 The City has formulated the procedures set out in this RFP to ensure that it receives Proposals through an open, competitive process, and that Proponents receive fair and equitable treatment in the solicitation, receipt and evaluation of their Proposals. The City may reject the Proposal of any Proponent who fails to comply with any such procedures.

3.1.2 Proposals are expected to address the RFP content requirements as outlined herein. The Proposals should be well ordered, detailed and comprehensive. Clarity of language, adherence to suggested outline, and adequate accessible documentation is essential to the City’s ability to conduct a thorough evaluation. General marketing and promotional material will not be reviewed or considered.

3.1.3 The City prefers that the assumptions used by a Proponent in preparing its Proposal are kept at a minimum and to the extent possible, that Proponents will ask for clarification prior to the deadline for Proponent questions rather than make assumptions. Proponents should also review sections 3 to 6 of Appendix B with respect to questions about the RFP. Where a Proponent's assumptions are inconsistent with information provided in the RFP or so extensive that the total Proposal cost is qualified, such Proponent risks disqualification by the City in the City's sole discretion.

3.1.4 The City may reject the Proposal of any Proponent who fails to comply with these requirements.

3.2 PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION

3.2.1 The documentation for each Proposal:

a. Must be submitted in a sealed envelope or container (submissions made by fax, telephone, or electronic message will not be accepted) displaying a full and correct return address;

b. Must consist of One (1) original (clearly marked as such on its first page) and should consist of Five (5) full copies of:

1. A Main Proposal Document, as described in Section 3.4, including all attachments (Mandatory); and

2. Form 1 (Proposal Submission Form) completed and signed by an authorized official of the Proponent. This includes the acknowledgement of all addenda received as per Appendix C (Mandatory)

c. The Cost of Services Proposal must be submitted separately in a sealed envelope, as part of the two-envelope process. Refer to Section 5 regarding the Cost of Services Proposal. Inclusion of pricing information in the Technical Proposal will render the Proposal submission non-compliant.

d. All five (5) copies, as well as the original, should include a searchable pdf file of the Technical Proposal on a USB flash drive.

e. Must not include:

1. Any qualifying or restricting statements.

2. Exceptions to the terms and conditions of the RFP that have not been approved through addendum; or

3. Additional terms or conditions.

f. Must be completed and signed in a non-erasable medium.

g. Proponents must have attended the mandatory site/information meeting as per Section 1.5.

VIEWING C

OPY




3.3 PROPOSAL DELIVERY

3.3.1 Must be delivered no later than the Closing Deadline to:

Chief Purchasing Officer

Purchasing and Materials Management Division

18th Floor, West Tower, City Hall

TORONTO, ON, M5H 2N2

3.3.2 Delays caused by any delivery service (including Canada Post and courier) shall not be grounds for an extension of the Deadline, and Proposals that arrive after the Deadline will not be accepted.

3.4 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL CONTENT

The Technical Proposal should contain the following items.

3.4.1 Title Page

a. Showing RFP number, closing date and time, Proponent's name, address, email address and telephone number.

3.4.2 Letter of Introduction

a. Introducing the Proponent and signed by the person(s) authorized to bind the Proponent to statements made in the Proposal. The letter should be signed by the person signing the submission forms. Provide details for a contact person who will act as the Proponent’s representative for post-submission communications.

b. The letter should clearly state if the Proponent is bidding for a second Bundle. If the Proponent's letter of introduction does not clearly state that the Proponent is bidding for a second Bundle, the Proponent will not be considered for a second Bundle. All information needed to satisfy the requirements of Sections 3.4.6, 3.4.7, and 3.4.8 as it relates to the Proponent's information for the second Bundle should be included in a separate appendix.

3.4.3 Table of Contents

a. Include page numbers, identifying all submitted materials.

3.4.4 Format

a. The Technical Proposal should be arranged in the subsections described below.

b. Subsections 1 through 5 should be limited to 30 pages, minimum 11 point font, single sided (or preferably printed on 10 pages double sided), with unlimited appendices.

c. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 in this RFP can be submitted on 11"x17" paper, single sided, in the Technical Proposal and will not count towards the page limit.

d. The appendices should be clearly divided using tabs or similar, for ease of navigation.

e. Reusable binders are preferred.

3.4.5 Subsection 1 – Proponent's Profile & Corporate Experience

a. Overview of the Proponent firm(s), and its history. Include a list of present or pending works with the City, if any.

VIEWING C

OPY




b. Proponents should have staff, organization, and an established base adequate to ensure their ongoing ability to deliver and support the Project over its duration.

c. To be evaluated fully as a viable and sound enterprise, the Proponent should include the information in Sections 3.4.5.d to 3.4.5.k inclusively, and if the submission is a joint Proposal, each consortium member should provide this information. Please note that Proposals being presented by consortiums that do not include the information requested for each consortium member, will not be awarded full marks during evaluation.

d. If the Proposal is being presented by a consortium, provide a description of the relationships between consortium members. Please note Section 2 of Appendix B regarding consortiums and the requirement that there be a single Proponent.

e. A profile and summary of corporate history including:

1. Date company started

2. Products and/or services offered

3. Total number of employees

4. Major clients

5. A profile and summary of corporate history of any subsidiaries and affiliates and the nature of the Proponent’s relationship to them (i.e., research, financing and so on).

6. Where the skills/expertise/experience are being provided by a subcontractor, subconsultant or other legal entity apart from the Proponent, a Proposal that does not include the information requested in Subsections 1 and 2 for each such subcontractor or other entity, will not be awarded full marks during the evaluation.

f. Proponents are to demonstrate sufficient corporate experience by addressing the following specific areas:

1. Demonstrated experience in the areas of qualification by providing an indication of your firm(s)’s recent experience on projects of a similar nature with details as to size, location and client. A qualifying project is defined as a project with a similar scope and size as that described in this RFP and performed within the last 10 years. Projects completed by other firms (for example, while your key team members were working for these other firms) cannot be used for your corporate experience in subsection 1 of your Proposal; team member (staff) experience can be provided in Section 2 of your proposal to demonstrate the experience of each individual team member, as per RFP Section 3.4.6 below. Projects completed by firms that are consortium members under your Proposal can be used as experience in this subsection, as long as that consortium member was the prime/lead consultant for that effort.

2. To demonstrate the corporate experience, Proponents should complete Table 3.1 to include a minimum of five (5) qualifying projects while cross-referencing areas of experience with specific projects. Any provided project profile documentation shall be included as an Appendix.

3. Demonstrated training and qualifications to undertake the rainfall/flow monitoring tasks. This includes training and certification in confined space entry, traffic control, and health and safety. The City will not assume any liability. The Proponent should also indicate responsibility for equipment selection and supply, installation, removal, protection, site calibration, obtaining permission for installation, conducting maintenance, data quality control, and data retrieval, and carrying out all data analysis and Quality Assurance / Quality Control for all monitors (flow, level, velocity and rain).

VIEWING C

OPY




4. Demonstrate experience for hydrologic and hydraulic sewer network modeling, including analysis of the dual drainage principle, water quality modelling, sewer design, rainfall and flow monitoring, Environmental Assessment, public consultation, database design and management, and ArcGIS application.

5. Demonstrate experience for hydrologic and hydraulic sewer network modeling with respect to Combined Sewer Systems. A higher score will be given to Proponents who can demonstrate practical experience in addressing specific modelling needs of Combined Sewer Systems and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs).

6. Demonstrate capability of applying an InfoWorks ICM 2D modelling approach in terms of InfoWorks ICM software license availability, and staff knowledge and experience.

7. Provide a statement acknowledging that the Proponent has sufficient InfoWorks ICM licenses to complete this Project.

Table 3.1: Corporate Experience and References

Project Information References

Project Name

Cost Description of Scope

Areas of Experience

Current Project Stage

Year of Completion

Company Name

Contact Details

g. In providing references, Proponents agree that the City can contact the references listed as part of the evaluation process. The City will make its own arrangements in contacting the references. Substitution of references will not be permitted after the closing of the RFP. The City's evaluation may include information provided by the Proponent's references and may also consider the Proponent's past performance on previously awarded contracts with the City or other related Agencies, Boards and Commissions of the City.

h. The Proponent should demonstrate its commitment to diversity by:

1. Describing your company's commitment to an active supplier diversity program, including providing a company approved policy related to supplier diversity and demonstrated results of the policy; and

2. Describing your company’s commitment to a pro-active employment diversity program, including providing the company approved employee diversity policy and demonstrated results of the policy.

3. If the proponent is certified by a Supplier Diversity Organization, the Proponent should provide evidence of such certification.

VIEWING C

OPY




i. Proponents may submit a detailed Workforce Development Plan (the "WD Plan") that identifies which strategies, if any, from among the categories summarized below the Proponent is committed to deliver during term of the Project, as well as details on the implementation of the WD Plan. The WD Plan should specify the frequency of meetings that will be included for meeting with the designated City representative. The WD Plan should designate a liaison within the Proponent's organization that will implement and maintain the WD Plan and provide status updates and outcomes. The Plan should also include a process for maintaining records of progress and outcomes and share these records with the City at agreed intervals throughout the contract, at the end of the contract and upon request by the City. The WD Plan may also include subcontractors associated with any aspect of this Program, where feasible. Any costs associated with additional effort beyond the base scope of work are to be included in the Innovations section of the costing submission.

j. Workforce Development Strategies

1. Customized Recruitment - Customized recruitment initiatives involve needs-based approaches to sourcing qualified candidates for available jobs, developed and implemented in conjunction with existing hiring methods in order to enhance and augment typical talent pools.

2. Training and Work-based Learning Skills Development

3. Training includes programming that allows candidates to formally gain the skills required to compete for emerging job opportunities. Activities may include informing the development of industry recognized components and supporting the attainment of professional certifications or licensing for specific candidate groups (e.g., Newcomer professionals, youth, etc.).

4. Work-based learning involves a continuum of activities with an emphasis on learning in a real work environment and through practice on the job. Activities range from shorter and less formal workplace exposure (e.g., workplace tours and job shadowing) to longer term and more intensive (e.g., paid internships with specific skill development objectives).

5. Use of Social Enterprise in the Supply Chain

6. Identify opportunities to sub-contract, where required, components of work or services to social enterprises. Social Enterprises are enterprises that employ business methods and practices to create employment or training opportunities for low income or marginalized individuals.

7. Other Activities - Any other appropriate activities that will provide employment-related opportunities to candidates will also be considered. Employment related activities that will meet this requirement may include (but are not exclusive to) the following:

a) Participating in sector/industry career information sharing, learning and networking events

b) Providing mentoring through established mentorship programs c) Supporting pre-employment workshops such as resume and interview skills

development

k. Proponents should submit examples of how social benefits have been delivered by the Proponent in the past. Each example should include details of the program or initiative and documented evidence of success.

VIEWING C

OPY




3.4.6 Subsection 2 – Organization Chart and Project Team

a. The Proponent is required to assemble a multi-disciplinary team whose expertise matches the specific needs of the Projects.

b. Include an organization chart, for these Projects, with defined roles and responsibilities. The organization chart(s) must clearly define the roles and responsibilities of key team members for the Consultant and any Sub-Consultants (if applicable). The organization chart shall also show the project managers of the prime and Sub-Consultant teams, task leaders and team members and quality assurance / control leads, and demonstrate how the overall team structure and how each team and the overall Project(s) will be managed and co-ordinated to deliver a successful Project. Provide details on how the team will be managed, including communication and co-ordination protocol to ensure a successful delivery of the Project(s). The Consultant shall bear the ultimate responsibility of delivering the Project(s) on time and to the satisfaction of the City of Toronto.

c. The Proponent should submit signed consent forms authorizing the disclosure of personal information to the City, or its designated agent(s), for any resumes that are submitted. The Proponent will accept all liability if not disclosed to the City.

d. The Proponent, at a minimum, should identify key team members: project manager, head modeller, lead modellers, QA/QC team managers, EA specialist, field investigation lead, preliminary design manager, municipal engineer, and cost estimation lead. The Proponent should identify one (1) person for each role, with the exception of the lead modellers, where a minimum of two (2) lead modellers are preferred for each Project. Proponents who identify more lead modellers than the minimum specified will receive a higher score in this category.

e. To demonstrate team members' individual expertise, complete Table 3.2 for the specific staff requested, and include in the Proposal submission. Provide a summary of their experience and role(s) in the Proposal, with detailed CVs and project profile documentation included in an Appendix.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 3.2 - Qualifications of Key Team Members

Project Role Name of

Proposed Staff

Total Years of

Experience

Years of Experience in Project Role

Previous Projects in

Similar Role (Up to 3 per

Staff)

References

(2 per Staff)

Project Manager

QA/QC Lead

Head Modeller

Lead Modellers

(insert separate rows for each lead modeller)

Field Investigation Lead

Preliminary Design Manager

Municipal Engineer

Cost Estimation Lead

EA Specialist

f. The proposed Project team is expected to demonstrate individual team member experience, including, but not limited to the following specific areas:

1. Project Manager – a minimum of 10 years of experience (15 or more preferred) as a project manager, including demonstrated experience leading a large multi-disciplinary team on works of a similar size and complexity. The Project Manager’s experience should include the provision/co-ordination of all aspects of municipal water resources project(s), with relevant experience in hydraulic and hydrologic assessment of sewer systems, water quality assessment, stormwater management, design and construction of municipal linear and stormwater management infrastructure, as well as consultation with the public and regulatory agencies.

VIEWING C

OPY




2. QA/QC Lead – a minimum of 15 years of experience in the following areas of expertise: hydraulic and hydrologic assessment of sewer systems, stormwater management, design and construction of sewers and other underground infrastructure. The QA/QC Leads will be responsible for QA/QC review and sign-off, ensuring that all work is completed appropriately, checking for errors and omissions, confirming that all deliverables meet the terms of reference requirements.

3. Head Modeller – a minimum of 10 years of experience (15 or more preferred) in hydrologic and hydraulic computer modelling of sewer system networks, CSO and water quality control and management, sewer designs, and extensive proven applied knowledge of the InfoWorks software. Head Modeller will be responsible for developing the modelling plan, overseeing the work of the modelling team, and ensuring that the model adheres to the Project requirements and modelling guidelines.

4. Lead Modellers – a minimum of 5 years of experience in hydrologic and hydraulic computer modelling using InfoWorks or equivalent modelling software (for the purposes of this RFP these software packages include XPSWMM and MIKE Urban). Lead Modellers will be responsible for developing the InfoWorks model under the guidance of the Head Modeller. Given each Project's large geographical area of coverage, multiple Lead Modellers must be identified in the proposed team to ensure timely completion of individual Study Area efforts.

5. Field Investigation Lead – a minimum of 10 years of experience with extensive applied knowledge of ArcGIS and data management, and with an understanding of municipal linear infrastructure.

6. Preliminary Design Manager – a minimum 15 years of design experience in municipal linear infrastructure consulting including a demonstrated experience leading a large team of design leads on projects/programs of similar sizes, nature and complexity. Experience on recent works involving combined sewer systems is preferred.

7. Municipal Engineer – a minimum of 10 years of experience in municipal linear and stormwater management infrastructure design and construction. The Municipal Engineer must be a professional engineer licensed in Ontario, with demonstrated experience in the design of works/programs of similar sizes, nature and complexity. Experience on recent works involving combined sewer systems and/or within the City of Toronto is preferred.

8. Cost Estimation Lead – a minimum of 10 years of experience in cost estimation of linear infrastructure projects. The Cost Estimating Lead will be responsible for reviewing the cost estimates prepared using the Cost Estimating Tool and Guidelines to ensure that the cost estimates are appropriate, reasonable and conform to the Cost Estimating Tool and Guidelines document.

9. Engineering Survey Lead – a minimum of 5 years of related experience in providing and managing engineering surveys of similar scope as required by this RFP.

10. EA Specialist – a minimum of 10 years of experience with Municipal Class EA works, with extensive applied knowledge of the Class EA process, public and stakeholder consultation, and demonstrated experience in consultation with challenging stakeholders.

g. The City reserves the right to terminate the contract if the named key members of the Proponents staff are no longer available to complete the Project or fail to complete their Project within the budget and schedule commitments.

h. Project Manager and Head Modeller must be available to attend all monthly progress meetings.

VIEWING C

OPY




i. CVs for proposed individuals shall be included as an Appendix to the Proposal for each firm in alphabetical order. The CVs shall identify the individual's number of years of experience in their proposed role. It is important that key Project individuals (i.e. those with major areas of responsibility) be named with accompanying indication of guaranteed availability. Continuity of key personnel will be required with a contractual obligation up to Project completion. Substitutions are permitted only with full written approval of the City.

j. Provide a minimum of two (2) references for each team member for evaluating the experience and past performance. The same references can be used for more than one proposed team member. Note that the City prefers references for projects that are ongoing or recently completed and are similar to the Project(s) in this RFP. In providing references, Proponents agree that the City can contact the individuals provided as part of the evaluation process. Substitution of references will not be permitted after the closing of the RFP. The Proponent shall contact all of its references and ensure that the references are expecting to be contacted by the City within 4 weeks of the RFP closing date and ready to respond. References will have 5 business days to respond to the City after being contacted by email. Each reference must include:

1. Client's organization

2. Client contact name and title, address and telephone number

3. Date, title, and description of the project

4. Timing and duration of the team member's involvement in the project

3.4.7 Subsection 3 – Project Understanding and Approach

a. Identify project management and control methods to be used during the execution of the Project's components. This shall include, but is not limited to, details on pre-project planning, communication, scope and change management, time management, risk management, staff planning, budget control measures, dispute prevention and resolution, invoicing templates, health and safety, deliverable management, and quality management.

b. The Proponent shall build on the project management and controls approach described above to create a Project Management Plan (PMP), a draft of which is to be submitted at the Project kick-off meeting for City's approval. Provide description of how the PMP will be created, maintained and used throughout the Project.

c. Provide details of your quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) plan for key deliverables and all components of the Project, including QA/QC of your subconsultant’s analyses, results, and deliverables prior to submitting them to the City (if applicable).

d. Provide a discussion on the study approach, the essential concepts and methodology that will lead to success. Be specific in the description of the methodologies, strategy and steps such that it is relevant to each Project Area.

e. Identify and discuss essential factors that are critical to the success of the Project; identify and discuss challenges and how to best manage them.

f. Propose an approach to create and manage the data collected and updated as part of the Project, including the PKDBS.

g. Describe the approaches for undertaking a preliminary assessment of the existing drainage systems to identify flood clusters that are at a greater risk of flooding, whether utilizing rainfall and flow monitoring data provided by the City or assumed modelling parameters.

h. Provide a detailed discussion on how you intend to simplify your modelling approach for the high-level risk analysis and identification of flood clusters as part of TM#1. Be as specific as possible and practical in describing how your approach will differ from that outlined in the City's Modelling Guidelines.

VIEWING C

OPY




i. Detail the approach for completing the field survey and investigation tasks for the flood clusters, including a discussion of potential challenges and resolutions, your proposed methodology/approach in verification of the foundation drain connections.

j. Discuss the approach for developing and undertaking a monitoring program, including the potential challenges and resolutions, proposed timelines, selection of monitoring locations, monitoring techniques to be used and flow monitoring in large pipes and complex flow control structures.

k. Provide details on the approach to achieve the modelling objectives, how you will incorporate findings from the field survey and data collection tasks to improve the model, identify the flooding causes, and develop flood control measures.

l. Provide a discussion on how 2D modelling should or should not be applied.

m. Discuss the unique challenges in developing, designing, and implementing flood remediation Solutions to improve the hydraulic performance of the City's combined sewer system, and your approach in overcoming these challenges.

n. Describe the approach to resolve risks of flooding resulting from the overloading of the storm (major and minor) and combined drainage systems in land-locked (i.e. no access to watercourse or a body of water) urban areas (i.e. no access to watercourse or a body of water) and areas that are in not land-locked urban areas, while not impacting downstream areas negatively.

o. Present the approach to undertake the constructability review, both during the solution development in the study phase and refinement of assignments as part of the preliminary design phase.

p. Demonstrate your understanding of the scope requirements associated with preliminary design. Describe the key preliminary design elements, and specific approaches or considerations for designing different types of infrastructure improvements that may be recommended or designed to remediate basement flooding risks as part of the Study and/or EA under this RFP.

q. Describe the approach to undertake the required data collection and surveys, with emphasis on coordination with the design activities. Controls with respect to managing sub-consultants undertaking the surveys should be outlined clearly.

r. Provide discussion on the approach of incorporating green infrastructure (such as bio-retention) for suitable areas within the assignment extents.

s. Provide a discussion on the approach for cost estimation and preparation of the Cost Per Benefitting Property documentation.

t. Provide a discussion to demonstrate the understanding of the requirements associated with the Class EA process and Master Plan file preparation. Demonstrate an understanding of the MEA Class EA Master Plan process and the applicability to this Project.

u. Discuss your understanding of the sensitivity of the general public, affected residents, residents who have experienced flooding, and stakeholders towards drainage improvement construction works and more specifically as they relate to the City's Basement Flooding Protection Program. Describe your approach to successfully undertake and manage public consultation activities with these parties.

v. Provide a description of how the Project tasks will be coordinated and conducted in parallel to meet Project schedule.

VIEWING C

OPY




3.4.8 Subsection 4 – Schedule and Time-Task Breakdown

a. The schedule shall include an indication of the date of commencement. As a guideline, note that the RFP award and contract execution typically take 3-6 months following the receipt of the proposal documents.

b. Provide a schedule (Gantt Chart format) illustrating tasks and deliverables with key dates for major deliverables. It is expected that the schedule will be adhered to unless a written explanation is received from the Consultant and a written acceptance of schedule deviation is obtained from the City. Consultants shall provide a schedule for each Study Area (For Bundles A – E). If the Consultant considers a timeline to be too short or too long, this is to be explained in the Proposal. The Consultant's ability to maintain the proposed schedule will be evaluated in the performance review at the end of the Project.

c. The schedule shall clearly show the critical path.

d. Include 2 to 3 week time periods for all City reviews, depending on the magnitude of the submission.

e. Include appropriate time for QA/QC in the schedule.

f. List any assumptions associated with the proposed Study Area schedules.

g. Clearly outline the schedule control measures that will be implemented in order to ensure that the schedule is maintained.

h. The schedule shall clearly show the connectivity for preliminary design phase tasks, with critical path shown. The surveys and data collection are expected to take a significant portion of the total time allocated for preparation of preliminary design. The Proponent shall propose ways to minimize the overall duration of the preliminary design phase and identify the design related tasks that can happen in parallel with the surveys.

i. Provide a sample schedule variance chart. An updated schedule and schedule variance chart shall be reviewed at every progress meeting. A Gantt Chart with baseline and current schedules clearly shown is an acceptable alternative to a variance chart.

j. Provide a time-task breakdown for the Project. Hourly rates or disbursement amount should not be included in the Technical Proposal. Include a time / task breakdown with estimated person-hours for team members required to complete the various components of the Project. The time-task breakdown should be expanded based on the scope of services presented in this RFP.

k. The time-task breakdown shall be sufficiently detailed so that the level of effort of each staff member is identified for the various tasks in each separate component of the Project. The time task breakdown shall provide a sum of the hours for each team member and task, as well as the percentage of each team member hours over the total number of Project hours. If the team is a consortium, the number of hours for each consortium member shall be summed and a percent of the total hours for each consortium member shown.

l. Note that the time commitment proposed for the key team members and presented in the time-task breakdown is an important factor in determining whether the Project can be delivered as required in this RFP.

m. Proponents who opt to be considered for a second Bundle should include a second time-task breakdown for undertaking the scope required for Bundle F in the appendices, which will be developed as per the above requirements based on the assumption that the Proponent will be undertaking the Project for Bundle A as their first Bundle, and accordingly consider the resources that will need to be dedicated to performing the Bundle A Project.

VIEWING C

OPY




n. Proponents who opt to be considered for a second Bundle should include schedules, as per Section 3.4.8.b, for each of the Study Areas in Bundle F in the appendices. These schedules should be developed on the assumption that the Proponent will be undertaking the Project for Bundle A as their first Bundle.

3.4.9 Subsection 5 – Innovation and Value Added

a. Specify all value added activities or innovative ideas that are proposed, that were not specified in this RFP.

b. Provide any proposed innovated/alternative approaches for improving delivery schedule.

c. Provide any proposed innovated/alternative methodology/approach for the verification of foundation drain connections. (i.e. connecting to the City’s storm or sanitary or combined sewers) for properties to support modelling work.

d. Comment in your proposal as to the adequacy of the protocol and output data of the City’s existing rainfall and flow monitoring program. If additional enhancements are proposed, identify in your proposal any proposed enhancements.

e. Provide insight or suggestions for improving water quality through measures that can be potentially integrated with flood mitigation control measures.

f. Identify the costs for these items separately from the base scope, where applicable, in the Cost of Services envelope.

VIEWING C

OPY




SECTION 4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION 4.1 SELECTION COMMITTEE

4.1.1 All Proposals will be evaluated through a comprehensive review and analysis by a Selection Com-mittee, which may include members from the City's Engineering & Construction Services, Toronto Water and other City staff and stakeholders.

4.1.2 The Selection Committee may, at its sole discretion, retain additional committee members or advisors.

4.1.3 The aim of the Selection Committee will be to select up to five (5) Vendors, which would each be awarded one Bundle, with the possibility of one (1) of the Vendors being awarded a second Bundle based on an evaluation of their Proposal. The Vendors selected will not necessarily be the ones offering the lowest fees or cost. Cost is only one of the components in determining the total score or ranking. The Selection Committee will determine which Bundle is awarded to which Vendor and which Vendor may be awarded more than one Bundle, in accordance with the procedures outlined below.

4.1.4 By responding to this RFP, Proponents will be deemed to have agreed that the decision of the Selection Committee will be final and binding.

4.1.5 The City's evaluation may include information provided by the Proponent's references and may also consider the Proponent's past performance on previously awarded contracts within the City or other related Agencies, Boards and Commissions of the City.

4.2 SELECTION CRITERIA

4.2.1 The Proposals will be first reviewed for mandatory submission requirements, as follows:

a. Mandatory submission requirements will be scored PASS/FAIL, as described in Section 3.2. If all the mandatory requirements are not met, the Proposal would not be further evaluated and would be considered non-compliant.

4.2.2 If all mandatory submission requirements are met, the Proposal content will be evaluated using Table 4.1, and Table 4.2 if the Proponent has opted to be considered for a second Bundle. Technical Proposal Content Requirements are detailed in Section 3.4. The evaluation will be based upon the extent to which the Proponent's Proposal fulfills the submission requirements detailed in 3.4.5 to 3.4.9.

4.2.3 In addition to the above requirements, the Proposal will be evaluated on its completeness, conciseness, presentation, and general suitability (item F in Table 4.1).

4.2.4 The Proposal evaluation form that will be used to evaluate the Proposals is included as Table 4.1.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 4.1 – Proposal Evaluation Form

4.2.5 In addition to the Proposal evaluation outlined above, Proposals from Proponents who have opted to be considered for a second Bundle and are scored as one of the top five (5) based on the Table 4.1 technical evaluation will be evaluated for their capacity to undertake a second Bundle. The Proposal evaluation form that will be used to evaluate the Proponents for capacity is included as Table 4.2, which also includes a Cost of Services Proposal Evaluation. The capacity criteria focuses on the demonstration of access to all required software and resources to allow a parallel completion of tasks and efforts for a second Bundle.

Stage 1. MANDATORY SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS PASS/FAIL

Mandatory Proposal Requirements (S 3.2) PASS______ FAIL_______

Stage 2. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION (Refer to S 3.4)

Evaluation Criteria Available Points

Proponent's Points

A. Proponent's Profile & Corporate Experience 10

B. Organization Chart and Project Team 25

C. Project Understanding and Approach 20

D. Schedule and Time-Task Breakdown 15

E. Innovation and Value Added 10

F. Proposal Organization and Quality 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 85.0

Stage 4. COST OF SERVICES PROPOSAL EVALUATION (Refer to S. 5)

Formula: [lowest Bundles A-E average proposal cost divided by Proponent’s Bundles A-E average proposal cost] x 15

15.0

Total 100.0

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 4.2 – Capacity Evaluation Form

Stage 1. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION FOR PROPONENT CAPACITY (Refer to S 3.4)

Evaluation Criteria Available Points

Proponent's Points

A. Organization Chart and Project Team 12

B. Project Understanding and Approach 12

C. Schedule and Time-Task Breakdown (See Note A) 18.5

Sub-total 42.5

Stage 2. COST OF SERVICES PROPOSAL EVALUATION (Refer to S 5)

Formula: [lowest Bundle F proposal cost divided by Proponent’s Bundle F proposal cost] x 7.5

7.5

Total Capacity Score 50

Note:

A The Schedule and Time-Task Breakdown under Evaluation Criteria C refers to the second Time-Task Breakdown required for consideration for Bundle F as a second Bundle. Refer to Section 3.4.8.m.

VIEWING C

OPY




4.2.6 The Vendor with the highest total capacity score will be awarded the second Bundle.

4.3 SELECTION PROCESS

4.3.1 If the submission fails the mandatory submission requirements, the Proposal will be rejected. The Technical Proposal and Cost of Services will not be reviewed.

4.3.2 The Technical Proposal must score a minimum 59.5 points of the possible 85 points to have the Cost of Services envelope opened and the Cost Proposals evaluated. A single Cost of Services score (up to 15 possible points) for Table 4.1 will be determined using the average of the Cost of Services of Bundles A-E (the Cost of Services will be submitted for each Bundle A - E and an average cost will be calculated by dividing the sum of all Cost of Services by five (5)). The selection committee will not have any knowledge of information contained in the Cost of Services envelope until such time that the technical evaluations (both Table 4.1 and 4.2, if applicable) are complete and Proponents are short listed. The Total Score shall be the sum of the Technical Proposal score and the Cost of Services score.

4.3.3 For Proponents who have opted to be considered for a second Bundle, the Technical Proposal must score a minimum 29.75 points of the possible 42.5 points in Table 4.2 to have the Cost of Services envelope for Bundle F opened and that Cost Proposal evaluated. A single Cost of Services score (up to 7.5 possible points) for Table 4.2 will be determined using the Cost of Services of Bundle F. The selection committee will not have any knowledge of information contained in the Bundle F Cost of Services envelope until such time that the technical evaluations are complete and Proponents are short listed. The Total Capacity Score shall be the sum of the Technical Proposal score and the Cost of Services score.

4.3.4 For Vendors with the top five (5) highest Total Scores in Table 4.1 as determined above, the Selection Committee will determine a Complexity Score based on the sum of Table 4.1 Criterion B (Organization Chart and Project Team) and Table 4.1 Criterion C (Project Understanding and Approach). The Vendor with the highest Complexity Score will be ranked first and will be assigned the most complex Bundle. The Vendor with the second highest Complexity Score will be ranked second and will be assigned the second most complex Bundle, and so on. If there is a tie in the Complexity Score, the Vendor achieving the highest Technical Score will have the higher ranking and will be assigned the more complex Bundle.

4.3.5 The complexity of each Bundle has been determined by the City, at its sole discretion. The Bundle allocations shall occur in the order listed below and following the procedure outlined in Section 4.3.3 with item 1) being ranked as the most complex Bundle and item 5) being ranked as the least complex Bundle:

1. Bundle D: Study Areas 46 and 47

2. Bundle A: Study Areas 48, 51 and 61

3. Bundle B: Study Areas 49, 50, 53, and 54

4. Bundle E: Study Areas 52, 57 and 59

5. Bundle C: Study Areas 55, 58, 65 and 66

4.3.6 Following the allocation of Bundles, one Vendor may be awarded a second Bundle, with the second Bundle being Bundle F: Study Areas 55, 60, 63, 64 and 67. If the City chooses to award Bundle F to one of the Vendors, the second Bundle would be awarded to the Vendor with the highest Total Capacity Score from Table 4.2.

4.3.7 In the event of a tie in Total Score (Total Score rounded to one decimal point), the Proponent achieving the highest score for its Technical Proposal will have the higher ranking.

VIEWING C

OPY




4.3.8 In the event that an insufficient number of Proposals are submitted and/or pass the minimum thresholds to have the Cost of Services Envelope opened and evaluated, the City, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to either cancel the RFP, re-issue new RFPs, and/or go forward with all or part of the award of the Bundles.

4.4 CLARIFICATIONS

4.4.1 As part of the evaluation process, the Selection Committee may request further information with respect to the content of any Proposal to clarify its understanding of the Proponent’s response. The clarification process shall not be used to obtain required information that was not submitted at time of close, or to promote a particular Proponent.

4.4.2 The Selection Committee may request further information from one or more Proponents and not from others.

4.5 INTERVIEW

A Proponent whose written Proposal has met or exceeded the minimum score for the Technical Proposal or has received a high ranking may be invited to an interview with the Selection Committee, the results of which will be used by the Selection Committee as a mechanism to revisit, revise, confirm and finalize the score and select the recommended Proponent(s) and assign Bundles. The City reserves the right to interview up to a maximum of seven (7) top ranked Proponents. The Selection Committee may interview any Proponent(s) without interviewing others, and the City will be under no obligation to advise those not receiving an invitation until completion of the evaluation and selection process.

4.5.2 The representatives designated by the Selection Committee in its invitation to the Proponent must attend any interview scheduled as part of this evaluation process unless the City agrees otherwise in writing and at its sole discretion.

4.5.3 The representative of a Proponent at any interview scheduled is expected to be thoroughly versed and knowledgeable with respect to the requirements of this RFP and the contents of its Proposal, and must have the authority to make decisions and commitments with respect to matters discussed at the interview, which may be included in any resulting Agreement.

4.5.4 Where the staff team proposed by the Proponent is an important element in the selection criteria, the staff team proposed shall be present for the interviews.

4.5.5 No Proponent will be entitled to be present during, or otherwise receive any information regarding, any interview with any other Proponent.

4.5.6 Refusal of a Proponent to participate in an interview requested by the City may, in the City's sole discretion, be considered a failure of the Proponent to comply with a Mandatory Requirement of the RFP and thus subject to disqualification.

4.6 EVALUATION RESULTS

4.6.1 Upon conclusion of the evaluation process, a final recommendation will be made by the Selection Committee to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering & Construction Services and/or City Council.

4.6.2 Proposal evaluation results shall be the property of the City and are subject to MFIPPA. Evaluation results may be made available to public release pursuant to MFIPPA.

4.6.3 Proponents should be aware that Council and individual Councillors have the right to view the Proposals if their requests have been made in accordance with the City's procedures.

VIEWING C

OPY




4.7 NEGOTIATIONS AND AGREEMENTS

4.7.1 An award of a Project to a Proponent will be at the absolute discretion of the City.

4.7.2 The selection of a recommended Proponent will not oblige the City to negotiate or execute an Agreement with that recommended Proponent.

4.7.3 Any execution of an Agreement resulting from this RFP will be in accordance with the bylaws, policies, and procedures of the City.

4.7.4 The City shall have the right to negotiate on such matter(s) as it chooses with any Proponent to which it has awarded an Agreement without obligation to communicate, negotiate, or review similar modifications with other Proponents. The City shall incur no liability to any other Proponent as a result of such negotiation or alternative arrangements.

4.7.5 During negotiations, the scope of the services may be refined, issues may be prioritized, responsibilities among the Proponent, all staff and sub-Consultants provided by it, and the City may be settled and the issues concerning implementation may be clarified.

4.7.6 Any Agreement must contain terms and conditions in the interest of the City, and be in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor. If the Agreement required City Council approval, the final Agreement must contain terms and conditions substantially as set out in the Council report authorizing the Agreement. Any Agreement will incorporate as schedules of appendices such part of the RFP (including addenda) and the Proposal submitted in response thereto as are relevant to the provision of the goods and/or services.

4.7.7 The terms and conditions set out in Appendix ‘D’ shall be incorporated in any Agreement entered into with the recommended Proponent. These terms and conditions are mandatory and are not negotiable. Any Proponent wishing to request that the City consider any changes to the terms and conditions set out in Appendix "D" must follow the process outlined in Appendix "B".

4.7.8 If negotiations between the City and a Proponent do not result in an Agreement within one hundred-twenty (120) Days of receipt by the Proponent of notification of award, the City may at its sole discretion terminate such negotiations and either enter into negotiations with one or more other Proponents or terminate the RFP process.

4.7.9 The City shall be under no obligation to accept a Proposal without amendment, alteration, counter-offer, or any change that may result from negotiations with the Proponent submitting the Proposal.

4.7.10 The City reserves the right to award a contract in whole or in part.

4.8 CONSULTING AGREEMENTS / PURCHASE ORDERS

4.8.1 For reference, a specimen Agreement is included in Appendix D. The agreement may be required for all Project(s) regardless of dollar value, at the City’s sole discretion.

4.8.2 The Consultant Project shall be executed by one (1) agreement and the issuance of one (1) Purchase Order.

4.8.3 It is the City's intent to prepare agreements for execution prior to the initiation of the Work.

4.8.4 A lien holdback of 10% will not be retained by the City for the study component of the Project(s). The design component of the Project(s) will have a 10% lien holdback applied.

VIEWING C

OPY




4.9 INSURANCE

4.9.1 The successful Vendor agrees to purchase and maintain in force, at its own expense and for the duration of the services, the following policies of insurance, which policies shall be in a form and with an insurer acceptable to the City. A certificate evidencing these policies signed by the insurer or an authorized agent of the insurer must be delivered to the City prior to the commencement of services.

4.9.2 The Vendor will be required to comply with the following insurance requirements:

a. Professional liability (errors and omissions coverage) insurance in the amount of not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00);

1. Includes Environmental Consultants Professional Liability where the Vendor’s services include environmental work

2. Provides for thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation

3. Will extend to infringement of copyright and other intellectual property, including misuse of trade secrets, if appropriate.

b. Comprehensive General Liability insurance in the amount of TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00);

1. Adds City as additional insured

2. Includes the following clauses: personal injury liability; a cross-liability/severability of interest; broad form contractual liability; owner’s/contractor’s protective liability; contingent employer’s liability; employers liability; and non-owned automobile liability

3. Provides for thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of cancellation

c. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for all owned or leased licensed motorized vehicles used in the performance of services.

4.9.3 It is understood and agreed that the coverage and limits of liability noted above are not to be construed as the limit of liability of the Vendor in the performance of services. It is also agreed that the above insurance policies may be subject to reasonable deductible amounts, which deductible amounts shall be borne by the Vendor. At the expiry of the policies of insurance, original signed Certificates evidencing renewal will be provided to the City without notice or demand.

4.9.4 The Vendor is responsible for any loss or damage whatsoever to any of its materials, good, equipment or supplies and will maintain appropriate all-risk coverage as any prudent owner of such materials, goods, supplies and equipment. The Vendor shall have no claim against the City or the City's insurers for any damage or loss to its property and shall require its property insurers to waive any right of subrogation against the City.

VIEWING C

OPY




SECTION 5 COST OF SERVICES 5.1 COST OF SERVICES DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERY

5.1.1 The documentation for each Cost of Services:

a. Must be PACKAGED AND SEALED IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE labeled Cost of Services (submissions made by fax, telephone, or electronic message will not be accepted) displaying a full and correct return address;

b. Should include two separate envelopes; the first envelope containing pricing information for Bundles A to E, and the second envelope containing pricing information for Bundle F.

c. Must consist of One (1) original (clearly marked as such on its first page) and preferably one (1) pdf and three (3) printed copies. All copies should include a pdf file of the Cost of Services on a USB flash drive.

d. Any pricing shown in the Technical Proposal shall render the Proposal non-compliant.

5.2 COST OF SERVICES SUBMISSION CONTENT – GENERAL

5.2.1 Identify an upset limit for each Project, net of all taxes.

5.2.2 For the study component of the Project, provide a lump sum upset limit for each deliverable defined as base scope of work as indicated in Table 5.1A to Table 5.1E (each table is specific to a Bundle). Proponents opting to be considered for a second Bundle must also provide Table 5.1F as part of their Cost of Services documentation. All parts and items in Table 5.1A to Table 5.1E (and Table 5.1F, if opting for a second Bundle) must be priced for the entire services and submitted as part of the Proponent's Cost of Services Proposal in order for the Proposal to be considered valid. A partial submission shall render the Proposal non-compliant.

5.2.3 Provisional items have been established for the study component of the Project in Table 5.2A to Table 5.2F. All parts and items in Tables 5.2A to Table 5.2E (and Table 5.2F if opting for a second Bundle) must be priced and submitted as part of the Cost of Services Proposal for the entire services in order for the Proposal to be considered valid.

5.2.4 Preliminary design services are considered provisional and the fee breakdown for these services shall be provided in Table 5.3A to Table 5.3F. The fee for preliminary design services includes the total of the maximum percentage fees for each preliminary design services item, which is based on a percentage of the maximum construction cost (MCC), and additional provisional items priced by the Proponent. All parts and items in Tables 5.3A to Table 5.3E (and Table 5.3F if opting for a second Bundle) must be priced and submitted as part of the Cost of Services Proposal for the entire services in order for the Proposal to be considered valid.

5.2.5 Provisional allowances, for tasks not fully defined as part of this RFP, for the study component and preliminary design services component of these Projects are included by the City in Table 5.4A to Table 5.4F.Table 5.4F will only be considered for Proponents opting for a second Bundle

5.2.6 The total upset limit fee for Bundles A to E shall be the values presented in Tables 5.5A to 5.5E, which are derived from the sum of the Base Scope of Services - Study fee (Table 5.1A to 5.1E), the Provisional Items - Study (Tables 5.2A to 5.2E), the Provisional Preliminary Design Services (Tables 5.3A to 5.3E), and the Provisional Cash Allowances (Tables 5.4A to 5.4E).The total upset limit fee for Bundle F shall be the values presented in Table 5.5F which are derived from the sum of Base Scope of Services - Study fee (Table 5.1F), the Provisional Items - Study (Tables 5.2F), the Provisional Preliminary Design Services (Tables 5.3F), and the Provisional Cash Allowances (Tables 5.F) and will only be considered in the evaluation for Proponents opting for a second Bundle.

5.2.7 All prices shall remain valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of award of the contract.

VIEWING C

OPY




5.2.8 The sum of the totals of Tables 5.1A to 5.1E, Tables 5.2A to 5.2E, and Tables 5.3A to 5.3E shall be used for establishing the cost of services score in Table 4.1 as outlined in Section 4 of the RFP. The sum of the totals of Table 5.1F, Table 5.2F and Table 5.3F shall be used for establishing the cost of services score in Table 4.2 as outlined in Section 4 of the RFP.

5.2.9 Submit a list of proposed hourly rates (excluding HST) for all Project personnel by classification with role titles. All key personnel and any other specified individuals should be cross-referenced to the Technical Proposal. The classification rates will be used for any part of the work to be paid for on a time basis. These rates will be fixed for the duration of the RFP process and up to the term of any resulting agreement.

5.2.10 Hourly staff rates shall be fixed for a period of five (5) years from the date of award of the RFP. The City will consider requests for rate adjustment, should the duration of the Project extend significantly (over 30%) beyond the proposed schedule due to delays beyond the Consultant’s control. The rate adjustment shall not exceed the Toronto – All Items Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the subsequent years. The additional cost resulting from the rate adjustments will be paid from the Contingency. Rate adjustment will not be considered for delays caused by the Consultant or its sub-consultant(s). The rate adjustment shall not change the overall upset limit of the Project.

5.2.11 Provide a lump sum limit for any and all anticipated disbursements required in connection with the study base scope of services, in Tables 5.1A to 5.1E (and Table 5.1F if applicable). Disbursements relate to daily expenses incurred in the performance of services required for this Project. Payments for disbursements will be pro-rated on the value of work performed during a billable period; as follows:

a. The Lump Sum Limit for disbursements associated with the performance/delivery of the Study Base Scope of Services is not to exceed a maximum value of 5% of the study fees identified by the Proponent for items A.1 to A.7 in Table 5.1A to Table 5.1F.

5.2.12 Disbursements shall cover the following general expenses that may or can occur on a daily basis:

a. Telephone calls inclusive of long distance charges

b. Photocopying (including reports, technical memorandums, other deliverables, etc.)

c. Printing (including reports, technical memorandums, other deliverables, etc.)

d. Internet

e. Mobile Communications

f. Facsimiles

g. Taxi Fares

h. Public Transit Fares

i. Parking

j. Delivery and Expenses Charges

k. Computer, word processing

l. Computer aided drafting design (CADD) services

m. Travel expenses for office and resident field personnel for job-related travel;

n. Notarization of invoices and/or statutory declarations

5.2.13 Disbursements shall not include, and the City will not pay for the following:

a. Roadway tolls

b. Meal allowances

c. Use of personal computers

VIEWING C

OPY




5.2.14 If the value of the disbursements exceeds the percentage (%) stipulated in the City’s RFP, the value of the disbursements shall be reduced by the City to the maximum stipulated % value. Any such corrections resulting in an adjustment to the disbursement cost will be applied as an adjustment to the total upset limit fee for the Project.

5.2.15 Sub-Consultants costs and any associated mark-ups (see Section 5.8.5) are to be included in the Proponent's Cost of Services pricing tables as appropriate.

5.3 BASE SCOPE OF WORK

5.3.1 Base scope for the study shall be provided by the Proponent in Table 5.1A to Table 5.1E (and Table 5.1F, if opting for a second Bundle).

5.3.2 The cost for invoice preparation and processing is considered part of the base scope of work.

5.3.3 The costs for the preparation of work plans and change requests are considered part of the base scope of work.

5.3.4 Provide a separate cost for accounting audits, in accordance with the engineering services agreement, in Item A.7 of Table 5.1A to Table 5.1E (and Table 5.1F, if opting for a second Bundle).

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.1A: Upset Limit for Base Scope of Services - Study

Bundle A –Study Areas 48, 51 and 61

Item Cost ($)

A - BASE SCOPE OF SERVICES - STUDY (See Notes A - G):

A.1 TM#1 – PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT AND FLOOD CLUSTER IDENTIFICATION

$

A.2 TM #2 - HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC (H&H) MODELLING AND ASSESSMENT

$

A.3 TM #3 - PREFERRED SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT $

A.4 TM #4 – ASSIGNMENT SCOPE DEVELOPMENT AND PRIORITIZATION

$

A.5 Draft and Final Study Reports $

A.6 Project Management and Project Meetings $

A.7 Accounting Audit $

A.8 Disbursements (up to 5%) $

SUBTOTAL BASE SCOPE OF SERVICES - STUDY (A)

(To be carried forward to Table 5.5A)$

HST @13% $

TOTAL BASE SCOPE OF WORK (including HST) $

Notes: A. Payment for Base Scope of Services items is on a lump sum basis following a fee payment schedule

developed for the duration of the Project by the Vendor and approved by the City. The fee payment schedule must consider that payment for these items will be limited to a maximum of 80% of the total task value until receipt of the draft submission and to 100% upon acceptance of the final deliverable.

B. May include analysis and modelling for sanitary, combined and storm sewer systems.

C. Existing Flow monitoring data is available for TM#1.

D. For bidding purposes, assume 50% of each Study Area requires Field Investigation and Additional Data Collection (TM#2).

E. Costs associated with PKDBS to be included in Item A.2 (TM#2) and Item A.5 (Final Study Report).

F. Costs associated with Archeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment to be included in Item A.3 (TM#3).

G. Costs should consider that each Study Area within the Bundle requires a separate submission.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.1B: Upset Limit for Base Scope and Provisional Allowances - Study

Bundle B – Study Areas 49, 50, 53, and 54

Item Cost ($)



$


$



$





SUBTOTAL BASE SCOPE OF WORK (A)

(To be carried forward to Table 5.5B)$

HST @13% $








F. Costs associated with Archeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment to be included in Item A.3 (TM#3)


VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.1C: Upset Limit for Base Scope and Provisional Allowances - Study

Bundle C – Study Areas 55, 58, 65 and 66

Item Cost ($)



$


$



$






(To be carried forward to Table 5.5C)$

HST @13% $










VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.1D: Upset Limit for Base Scope and Provisional Allowances - Study

Bundle D – Study Areas 46 and 47

Item Cost ($)



$


$



$






(To be carried forward to Table 5.5D)$

HST @13% $










VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.1E Upset Limit for Base Scope and Provisional Allowances - Study

Bundle E – Study Areas 52, 57 and 59

Item Cost ($)



$


$



$






(To be carried forward to Table 5.5E) $

HST @13% $










VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.1F: Upset Limit for Base Scope and Provisional Allowances - Study

Bundle F – Study Areas 56, 60, 63, 64 and 67

Item Cost ($)

A - BASE SCOPE OF SERVICES - STUDY (See Notes A - H):


$


$



$






(To be carried forward to Table 5.5F) $

HST @13% $


Notes:

A. Table 5.1F (Bundle F) only to be submitted by Proponents opting for a second Bundle.

B. Payment for Base Scope of Services items is on a lump sum basis following a fee payment schedule developed for the duration of the Project by the Vendor and approved by the City. The fee payment schedule must consider that payment for these items will be limited to a maximum of 80% of the total task value until receipt of the draft submission and to 100% upon acceptance of the final deliverable.

C. May include analysis and modelling for sanitary, combined and storm sewer systems.

D. Existing Flow monitoring data is not available for TM#1.

E. For bidding purposes, assume 50% of each Study Area requires Field Investigation and Additional Data Collection (TM#2).

F. Costs associated with PKDBS to be included in Item A.2 (TM#2) and Item A.5 (Final Study Report).

G. Costs associated with Archeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment to be included in Item A.3 (TM#3)

H. Costs should consider that each Study Area within the Bundle requires a separate submission

VIEWING C

OPY




5.4 PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCES

5.4.1 Unit price costs for provisional items for the study component of the Project shall be provided in Table 5.2A to Table 5.2E (and Table 5.2F, if opting for a second Bundle). The quantities are estimated based on the size of the Bundles.

a. The Proponent shall include the cost of undertaking flow, level and rainfall monitoring for the duration of the Study in items B.1 – B.7. These items and quantities will be confirmed by the Consultant as part of the development of a rainfall and flow monitoring plan. Cost for data review, analysis and reporting is addressed in the Preliminary Design Cost of Services in Tables 5.3A-F.

5.4.2 Preliminary design services are considered Provisional. The Consultant fees for preliminary design shall be based on a fee percentage of the estimated construction costs and the cost breakdown for defined provisional items provided by the Proponent in Table 5.3A to Table 5.3E (and Table 5.3F, if opting for a second Bundle).

a. Although the City does not guarantee what the actual cost of construction will be, for purposes of establishing the Proposal's percentage fee for engineering services, the Maximum Construction Cost (MCC) is a fixed value for each Bundle that is approximately equal to $15,000,000 per Study Area. The MCC is proportioned between linear works, facilities and green infrastructure as noted in Table 5.3A to Table 5.3F.

b. The Proponent is to show all decimal places (up to three decimal places if necessary, and not rounded) for its quoted percentages so that the maximum percentage fees can be verified/calculated by the City using these percentages.

5.4.3 As part of the preliminary design component of the Project, the following Provisional Items may be required as noted in Tables 5.3A to 5.3F:

a. Review and Analysis of Rain and Flow Monitoring data collected as part of the monitoring program developed by the Consultant. The cost is based on the number of gauges as outlined in Tables 5.2A to 5.2F.

b. Local calibration of the H&H model using data that meets the criteria outlined in this RFP.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.2A: Unit Price Provisional Items - Study

Bundle A: Study Areas 48, 51 and 61

ItemNo. Description Unit (A)

Estimated Quantity

Unit Price (B)

Cost ($) (AxB)

B.1 Supply, install and remove flow monitoring equipment (See Note A)

Location 50 $ $

B.2 Supply, install and remove level monitoring equipment (See Note A)

Location 25 $ $

B.3

Flow monitoring and level monitoring equipment maintenance, data acquisition and QA/QC (See Note A & B)

Month/ Location

14/75 (1050)

$ $

B.4 Supply, install and remove rain gauge

Location 10 $ $

B.5 Rain gauge maintenance, data acquisition and QA/QC (See Note B)

Month/ Location

14/10 (140)

$ $

B.6

Paid Duty Police Officer for traffic control including all associate administration and overhead costs

Hour 200 $ $

SUBTOTAL UNIT PRICE PROVISIONAL ITEMS (B) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5)

$

HST @13% $

TOTAL UNIT PRICE PROVISIONAL ITEMS (including HST) $

Notes:

A. Cost shall include monitoring sites located on Local, Collector, Arterial roads and river valleys. Cost shall factor in night time installation/removal/access.

B. The monitoring period is not necessarily consecutive months. Cost shall factor in rental equipment for the monitoring period.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.2B: Unit Price Provisional Items - Study

Bundle B: Study Areas 49, 50, 53, and 54

Item No.

Description Unit (A)

Estimated Quantity

Unit Price (B)

Cost ($) (AxB)


Location 65 $ $


Location 30 $ $

B.3


Month/ Location

14/95 (1330)

$ $


Location 10 $ $


Month/ Location

14/10 (140)

$ $

B.6


Hour 200 $ $


$

HST @13% $


Notes:



VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.2C: Unit Price Provisional Items - Study

Bundle C: Study Areas 55, 58, 65 and 66

Item No.

Description Unit(A)

Estimated Quantity

Unit Price (B)

Cost ($)(AxB)


Location 40 $ $


Location 20 $ $

B.3


Month/ Location

14/60 (840)

$ $


Location 15 $ $


Month/ Location

14/15 (210)

$ $

B.6


Hour 200 $ $


$

HST @13% $


Notes:



VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.2D: Unit Price Provisional Items - Study

Bundle D: Study Areas 46 and 47

Item No.

Description Unit(A)

Estimated Quantity

Unit Price (B)

Cost ($)(AxB)


Location 30 $ $


Location 15 $ $

B.3


Month/ Location

14/45 (630)

$ $


Location 10 $ $


Month/ Location

14/10 (140)

$ $

B.6


Hour 200 $ $


$

HST @13% $


Notes:



VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.2E: Unit Price Provisional Items - Study

Bundle E: Study Areas 52, 57 and 59 Item No.

Description Unit(A)

Estimated Quantity

Unit Price (B)

Cost ($)(AxB)


Location 80 $ $


Location 40 $ $

B.3


Month/ Location

14/120 (1680)

$ $


Location 20 $ $


Month/ Location

14/20 (280)

$ $

B.6


Hour 200 $ $


$

HST @13% $


Notes:



VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.2F: Unit Price Provisional Items - Study

Bundle F: Study Areas 56, 60, 63, 64 and 67

Item No.

Description Unit (A)

Estimated Quantity

Unit Price (B)

Cost ($) (AxB)

B.1 Supply, install and remove flow monitoring equipment (See Note B)

Location 70 $ $

B.2 Supply, install and remove level monitoring equipment (See Note B)

Location 35 $ $

B.3

Flow monitoring and level monitoring equipment maintenance, data acquisition and QA/QC (See Note B & C)

Month/ Location

14/105 (1470)

$ $


Location 20 $ $

B.5 Rain gauge maintenance, data acquisition and QA/QC (See Note C)

Month/ Location

14/280 (280)

$ $

B.6


Hour 200 $ $

SUBTOTAL UNIT PRICE PROVISIONAL ITEMS ‐ STUDY (B) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5)

$

HST @13% $


Notes:

A. Table 5.2F (Bundle F) only to be submitted by Proponents opting for a second Bundle.

B. Cost shall include monitoring sites located on Local, Collector, Arterial roads and river valleys. Cost shall factor in night time installation/removal/access.

C. The monitoring period is not necessarily consecutive months. Cost shall factor in rental equipment for the monitoring period.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.3A: Maximum Limit of Percentage Fee and Provisional Items - Preliminary Design


Item MCC ($)

(A)

Percentage of MCC (%) (B)

Maximum Percentage Fee

($) (AXB)

C – PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE - PRELIMINARY DESIGN (See Notes A - E):

C.1 Preliminary Design Services – Linear Works (sewers, watermains, box culverts, road reconstruction/ resurfacing)

$33,750,000.00 % $

C.2 Preliminary Design Services - Storage Facilities (storage tanks, wet/dry ponds/wetlands)

$11,125,000.00 % $

C.3 Preliminary Design Services – Green Infrastructure (e.g., bio-retention in the right-of-way)

$2,250,000.00 % $

Total MCC ($) $47,250,000.00

SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE PRELIMINEARY DESIGN (C) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5A)

$

HST @13% $

TOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE PRELIMINEARY DESIGN (C)(including HST)

$

Item Cost ($)

D – PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN

D.1 TM#5 - Rainfall And Flow Monitoring Program Data Review and Analysis $

D.2 Local Calibration During Preliminary Design $

SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (D) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5A)

$

HST @13% $

TOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (including HST) $

Notes:

A. Percentage of MCC includes City approved disbursements as described in Section 5.2. B. The estimated MCC for all preliminary design services is $47,250,00.00. The preliminary design fees will be

based on a percentage of the Engineer's Estimate determined by the Consultant. This fee percentage shall be valid for a construction cost range of - 25% of the MCC to 100% of the MCC

C. Payment for preliminary design services is on a lump sum basis following a fee payment schedule developed for the duration of the preliminary design for that Project/Study Area by the Vendor and approved by the City. The fee payment schedule must consider that payment for these items will be limited to a maximum of 80% of the total task value until receipt of the draft submission and to 100% upon acceptance of the final deliverable

D. For costing purposes assume that three (3) preliminary design reports will be prepared for each Study Area. E. Maximum Percentage Fee adjustment for preliminary design services may be required as outlined in Section

5.8.2.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.3B: Maximum Limit of Percentage Fee and Provisional Items - Preliminary Design


Item MCC ($)

(A)



($) (AXB)



$33,750,000.00 % $


$11,125,000.00 % $


$2,250,000.00 % $

Total MCC ($) $47,250,000.00

SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE PRELIMINEARY DESIGN (C) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5B)

$

HST @13% $


$

Item Cost ($)




SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (D) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5B)

$

HST @13% $


Notes:

A Percentage of MCC includes City approved disbursements as described in Section 5.2. B The estimated MCC for all preliminary design Services is $47,250,00.00. The preliminary design fees will be


C Payment for preliminary design services is on a lump sum basis following a fee payment schedule developed for the duration of the preliminary design for that Project/Study Area by the Vendor and approved by the City. The fee payment schedule must consider that payment for these items will be limited to a maximum of 80% of the total task value until receipt of the draft submission and to 100% upon acceptance of the final deliverable

D For costing purposes assume that three (3) preliminary design reports will be prepared for each Study Area. E Maximum Percentage Fee adjustment for preliminary design services may be required as outlined in Section

5.8.2.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.3C: Maximum Limit of Percentage Fee and Provisional Items - Preliminary Design


Item MCC ($)

(A)



($) (AXB)



$33,750,000.00 % $


$11,125,000.00 % $


$2,250,000.00 % $

Total MCC ($) $47,250,000.00

SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE PRELIMINEARY DESIGN (C) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5C)

$

HST @13% $


$

Item Cost ($)




SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (D) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5C)

$

HST @13% $


Notes:





5.8.2.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.3D: Maximum Limit of Percentage Fee and Provisional Items - Preliminary Design


Item MCC ($)

(A)



($) (AXB)



$22,500,000.00 % $


$7,500,000.00 % $


$1,500,000.00 % $

Total MCC ($) $31,500,000.00

SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE PRELIMINEARY DESIGN (C) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5D)

$

HST @13% $


$

Item Cost ($)




SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (D) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5D)

$

HST @13% $


Notes:





5.8.2.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.3E: Maximum Limit of Percentage Fee and Provisional Items - Preliminary Design

Bundle E: Study Areas 52, 57 and 59

Item MCC ($)

(A)



($) (AXB)



$33,750,000.00 % $


$11,125,000.00 % $


$2,250,000.00 % $

Total MCC ($) $47,250,000.00

SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE PRELIMINEARY DESIGN (C) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5E)

$

HST @13% $


$

Item Cost ($)




SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (D) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5E)

$

HST @13% $


Notes:





5.8.2.

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.3F: Maximum Limit of Percentage Fee and Provisional Items - Preliminary Design


Item MCC ($)

(A)



($) (AXB)



$45,000,000.00 % $


$15,000,000.00 % $


$3,000,000.00 % $

Total MCC ($) $63,000,000.00

SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE PRELIMINEARY DESIGN (C) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5F)

$

HST @13% $


$

Item Cost ($)




SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (D) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5F)

$

HST @13% $


Notes:





5.8.2.

VIEWING C

OPY




5.5 PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCES

Provisional

a. Allowance for Additional Site Investigation and Specific Flood Issue Analyses. This includes field investigations and data collection that are beyond the 50% Study Area base scope and FS&IP components that are recommended by the Consultant and are not included in the base scope.

b. Allowance for field survey and investigation of FCS.

c. Allowance for 2D Model for surface flow modelling for the locations recommended by the Consultant.

d. Allowance for Coordination with affected parties (e.g. TTC, Toronto Hydro, etc…) including all associate administration and overhead costs during monitoring program implementation.

e. Allowance to cover the advancement of one Assignment to Schedule 'B' based on the requirements outlined in Appendix A.5 (includes public consultation).

f. Allowance to undertake a Tree Inventory in the event that the need for one is identified to meet EA requirements.

g. Allowance to undertake an Environmental Impact Study in the event the need for one is identified to meet EA requirements.

h. Allowance to cover the advancement of one Assignment to Schedule “C” level based on the requirements outlined in Appendix A.5 (includes public consultation). The cost is over and above the Class EA Schedule B costs.

i. Allowance for Data Collection in support of preliminary design, which may include CCTV, smoke/dye testing, SUE B, SUE A, Geotechnical Investigations, Hydrogeological Investigations, Tree Inventories, Topographical and/or Legal surveying, and associated reporting.

j. Allowance for Public Consultation Activities during preliminary design

k. Allowance for Paid Duty Officer as required by the Ministry of Transportation as part of Traffic Management Plan.

l. Allowance for Easements/Working Easements, which includes one (1) meeting with the affected property owner(s) and/or the local councillor before an alternative design solution is explored.

m. Allowance for Cultural Heritage Assessment. VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.4A: Provisional Cash Allowances – Study and Preliminary Design


Item Cost ($)

E – PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCE – STUDY: E.1 Allowance for Additional Site Investigation and Specific Flood

Issue Analyses $ 300,000.00

E.2 Field Survey and Investigation of FCS $ 60, 000.00 E.3 Allowance for Coordination with affected parties (e.g. TTC)

during monitoring program implementation $ 10,000.00

E.4 Allowance for 2D Modelling $ 100,000.00 E.5 Allowance for completing EA requirements (Phase 2) for one

Schedule B Assignment $ 45,000.00

E.6 Allowance for Tree Inventory for EA Requirements $ 30,000.00 E.7 Allowance for Environmental Impact Assessment for EA

Requirements $ 25,000.00

E.8 Allowance for completing EA requirements (Phase 3 and Phase 4) for one Schedule C Assignment $ 30,000.00

E.9 Contingency Allowance $ 300,000.00

SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (E) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5A)

$900,000.00

HST @ 13% $117,000.00

TOTAL PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (including HST)

$1,017,000.00

F – PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCE – PRELIMINARY DESIGN:

F.1 Allowance for Data Collection and Reporting $1,800,000.00

F.2 Allowance for Public Consultation Activities $ 30, 000.00

F.3 Allowance for Paid Duty Officer $ 50, 000.00

F.4 Allowance of Easements/Working Easements $ 50,000.00

F.5 Allowance for Cultural Heritage Assessment $ 25,000.00

F.6 Contingency Allowance $ 170,000.00

SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCES – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (F)

(To be carried forward to Table 5.5A)

$2,045,000.00

HST @ 13% $265,850.00

TOTAL PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCES – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (including HST)

$2,310,850.00

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.4B: Provisional Cash Allowances – Study and Preliminary Design


Item Cost ($)



E.2 Field Survey and Investigation of FCS $50,000.00 E.3 Allowance for Coordination with affected parties (e.g. TTC)







E.9 Contingency Allowance $400,000.00

SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (E) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5B)

$990,000.00

HST @ 13% $128,700.00


$1,118,700.00







F.6 Contingency Allowance $170,000.00


(To be carried forward to Table 5.5B) $2,045,000.00

HST @ 13% $265,850.00


$2,310,850.00

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.4C: Provisional Cash Allowances – Study and Preliminary Design


Item Cost ($)











SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (E) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5C)

$1,110,000.00

HST @ 13% $144,300.00


$1,254,300.00









(To be carried forward to Table 5.5C)

$2,045,000.00

HST @ 13% $265,850.00


$2,310,850.00

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.4D: Provisional Cash Allowances – Study and Preliminary Design


Item Cost ($)











SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (E) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5D)

$760,000.00

HST @ 13% $98,800.00


$858,800.00









(To be carried forward to Table 5.5D)

$1,425,000.00

HST @ 13% $185,250.00


$1,610,250.00

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.4E: Provisional Cash Allowances – Study and Preliminary Design


Item Cost ($)











SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (E) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5E)

$890,000.00

HST @ 13% $115,700.00


$1,005,700.00









(To be carried forward to Table 5.5E)

$2,045,000.00

HST @ 13% $265,850.00


$2,310,850.00

VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.4F: Provisional Cash Allowances – Study and Preliminary Design


Item Cost ($)











SUBTOTAL PROVISIONAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (E) (To be carried forward to Table 5.5F)

$960,000.00

HST @ 13% $124,800.00


$1,084,800.00









(To be carried forward to Table 5.5F)

$2,705,000.00

HST @ 13% $351,650.00


$3,056,650.00

Note: Table 5.4F (Bundle F) only to be submitted by Proponents opting for a second Bundle.

VIEWING C

OPY




5.6

5.6.1 The sum of the total upset limit as provided in Table 5.5A to Table 5.5F, shall be used for establishing the cost of services score for the Proposal evaluation and selection as outlined in Section 4.

Table 5.5A: Total Upset Limit Fee


Total Fees ($)

1 TOTAL BASE SCOPE OF WORK (A, Table 5.1A) $

2 TOTAL UNIT PRICE PROVISIONAL ITEMS - STUDY (B, Table 5.2A) $

3 TOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (C, Table 5.3A)

$

4 TOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (D, Table 5.3A) $

5 TOTAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (E, Table 5.4A) $

6 TOTAL CASH ALLOWANCES – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (F, Table 5.4A) $

7 TOTAL UPSET LIMIT FEE (1+2+3+4+5+6) $

8 TOTAL UPSET LIMIT FEE INCLUDING HST $

VIEWING C

OPY




able 5.5B: Total Upset Limit Fee


Total Fees ($)

1 TOTAL BASE SCOPE OF WORK (A, Table 5.1B) $

2 TOTAL UNIT PRICE PROVISIONAL ITEMS - STUDY (B, Table 5.2B) $

3 TOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (C, Table 5.3B)

$

4 TOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (D, Table 5.3B) $

5 TOTAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (E, Table 5.4B) $

6 TOTAL CASH ALLOWANCES – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (F, Table 5.4B) $



Table 5.5C: Total Upset Limit Fee


Total Fees ($)

1 TOTAL BASE SCOPE OF WORK (A, Table 5.1C) $

2 TOTAL UNIT PRICE PROVISIONAL ITEMS - STUDY (B, Table 5.2C) $

3 TOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (C, Table 5.3C)

$

4 TOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (D, Table 5.3C) $

5 TOTAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (E, Table 5.4C) $

6 TOTAL CASH ALLOWANCES – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (F, Table 5.4C) $



VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.5D: Total Upset Limit Fee


Total Fees ($)

1 TOTAL BASE SCOPE OF WORK (A, Table 5.1D) $

2 TOTAL UNIT PRICE PROVISIONAL ITEMS - STUDY (B, Table 5.2D) $

3 TOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (C, Table 5.3D)

$

4 TOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (D, Table 5.3D) $

5 TOTAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (E, Table 5.4D) $

6 TOTAL CASH ALLOWANCES – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (F, Table 5.4D) $



Table 5.5E: Total Upset Limit Fee


Total Fees ($)

1 TOTAL BASE SCOPE OF WORK (A, Table 5.1E) $

2 TOTAL UNIT PRICE PROVISIONAL ITEMS - STUDY (B, Table 5.2E) $

3 TOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (C, Table 5.3E)

$

4 TOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (D, Table 5.3E) $

5 TOTAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (E, Table 5.4E) $

6 TOTAL CASH ALLOWANCES – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (F, Table 5.4E) $



VIEWING C

OPY




Table 5.5F: Total Upset Limit Fee


Total Fees ($)

1 TOTAL BASE SCOPE OF WORK (A, Table 5.1F) $

2 TOTAL UNIT PRICE PROVISIONAL ITEMS - STUDY (B, Table 5.2F) $

3 TOTAL PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PERCENTAGE FEE – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (C, Table 5.3F)

$

4 TOTAL PROVISIONAL ITEMS – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (D, Table 5.3F) $

5 TOTAL CASH ALLOWANCES - STUDY (E, Table 5.4F) $

6 TOTAL CASH ALLOWANCES – PRELIMINARY DESIGN (F, Table 5.4F) $



Note: Table 5.5F (Bundle F) only to be submitted by Proponents opting for a second Bundle.

ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED BY PROPONENT

5.7.1 The evaluation of alternatives suggested by the Proponent is governed in accordance with Section 2.8.

5.7.2 In the event that the Proponent has identified a suggested improvement in the Project(s) scope, the related cost is NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPONENT’S BASE PROPOSAL OR CITY OF TORONTO ALTERNATIVES PRICING. The cost related to the Proponent’s suggested improvement/innovation idea is to be presented separately.

5.7.3 Cost of Services Proposals for Proponent’s alternatives are to be included in the Cost of Services envelope, along with the base Proposal. If the Proponent elects to submit pricing for an alternative, this pricing will only be used as the basis for fee negotiation, once the Vendor has been selected.

5.8 PAYMENTS FROM COST OF SERVICES PROPOSAL

5.8.1 Payment for base scope of work and preliminary design services will be on a lump sum basis up to the maximum amount for each deliverable. Payments will follow a fee payment schedule developed by the Vendor and approved by the City. The fee payment schedule shall link deliverables (e.g. TM#1, TM#2, etc.) and fee payments with the goal of encouraging timely completion of deliverables. To this end, the fee payment schedule must consider that payment for each item that includes a deliverable will be limited to a maximum of 80% of the total task value up to and once the draft deliverable is received. The 20% balance of the task value will be paid upon acceptance of the final deliverable.

VIEWING C

OPY




5.8.2 The actual maximum percentage fee payable to the Consultant, at different stages of preliminary design, shall be as follows, for each Project:

a. Up to the completion of the preliminary design, the Consultant’s maximum percentage fee, for preliminary design services, shall be the percentage entered in Tables 5.3A to 5.3F applied to the lesser of the cost estimate developed in TM#4 and the Maximum Construction Cost (MCC).

b. On completion of preliminary design, the Consultant’s maximum percentage fee, for preliminary design services, shall be the percentage entered in Tables 5.3A to 5.3F applied to the lesser of the cost estimate documented in the final preliminary design report and the MCC.

c. The cost estimate for calculating the maximum percentage fee during preliminary design shall include the contingencies specified in the Basement Flooding Protection Program Cost Estimating Tool but exclude property acquisition / easement costs, management reserves, provisional allowances included in the construction tender, and taxes.

5.8.3 The City’s standard requirements for invoicing are included in Appendix A.1. The Proponent is responsible for reviewing this information and familiarizing themselves with City’s requirements. Payment will be based upon completion status and deliverables received by the City, not billable hours.

5.8.4 Payments for disbursements will be pro-rated based on the value of the work performed during a billable period.

5.8.5 Fees for Sub-Consultant services will be paid at cost plus a mark-up of a maximum of 5%, if provided for in the cost of services Proposal. Invoices must be submitted for payment. The 5% mark-up is intended to cover the coordination, QA/QC and payment processing for the Sub-Consultant by the Proponent.

5.8.6 Unit Price Provisional Items that exceed quantities listed in the fee tables will be paid from the set Contingency Allowance. Approval from the City via change order is required before additional services are performed.

5.8.7 The City shall not be responsible for any unauthorized additional costs.

5.8.8 The Vendor is solely responsible for any and all payments and/or deductions required to be made including those required for the Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, Workplace Safety and Insurance, and Income Tax.

5.8.9 A lien holdback of 10% will not be retained by the City for the study component of the Project(s). The design component of the Project(s) will have a 10% lien holdback applied, in accordance with the Construction Act.

5.8.10 All invoices must clearly show HST as a separate value and HST "registrant" number.

5.8.11 Without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the Vendor acknowledges that, if it is a non-resident person, payments to the Vendor, as a non-resident person, may be subject to withholding taxes under the Income Tax Act (Canada). Further, unless the Vendor, as a non-resident person, provides the City with an official letter from Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency waiving the withholding requirements, the City will withhold the taxes it determines are required under the Income Tax Act (Canada).

5.8.12 In the event of mathematical errors found in the pricing pages, the unit prices quoted shall prevail. Extensions and totals will be corrected accordingly by City staff and adjustments resulting from the correction will be applied to the Total Lump Sum Price quoted.

5.8.13 With each invoice, the Consultant shall submit an earned value report to gauge Project completion and deliverable status.

VIEWING C

OPY




5.8.14 Subject to budgetary constraints, the City reserves the right to not proceed to preliminary design with any or all of the Projects. Any given Project or part of scope of Services can be stopped and “shelved” at any given point and the Consultant shall be compensated based on the progress (as a percentage) of the project phase, but not exceeding the payment limits defined above for the phase currently under way at the time of stoppage, and not exceeding the total maximum limit of percentage fee for engineering services from Tables 5.1A to 5.1F and 5.3A to 5.3F, all in accordance with s. 3 of the specimen consulting agreement.

5.9 PAYMENTS FOR PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCES

5.9.1 Payments from the provisional allowances, unit price provisional items, and provisional cash allowance will not be permitted without prior written approval of the Executive Director.

5.10 PAYMENTS FOR CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE

5.10.1 In seeking authority to engage consulting services, the City will include a contingency amount to cover potential changes in the scope of services where warranted. Payments from the Contingency Allowance will not be permitted without prior written approval of the Executive Director.

5.10.2 When submitting a work plan to justify additional work, both time and schedule impacts (to the Project, and to overall goal of starting construction) must be clearly specified.

5.11 CURRENCY

5.11.1 All dollar amounts, fee statements, and invoicing shall be in Canadian dollars. The Proponent shall assume all currency risk.

TAXES

5.12.1 Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) is to be applied to the prices submitted as specified in the relevant sections of the call document or in the Price Schedule provided in this RFP.

5.12.2 HST for the supply and delivery of materials/goods is to be shown as additional/separate line items on the Price Schedule and any subsequent invoices.

VIEWING C

OPY




SECTION 6 CITY RESPONSIBILITIES 6.1 GENERAL

6.1.1 Best efforts will be made by the City to provide information on the scope and current status of active design and construction works as well as the current timeline for their completion.

6.1.2 Best efforts will be made by the City to provide available record drawings and/or access to facility libraries to support the Project.

6.1.3 As required, the City will provide available operational data to support the design.

6.1.4 The City will provide a copy of the City’s Health & Safety Policies.

6.1.5 The City will pay application fees for required approvals.

6.1.6 The City will assist the successful Proponent by reviewing all submitted documents within approximately two (2) to three (3) weeks of receipt, depending on the magnitude of the submission.

6.1.7 The City will designate a Project Manager upon completion of the evaluation of the RFP and award of the Project(s).

6.1.8 Unless specifically stated elsewhere, for any public meetings needed to support the Project, the City will make facility arrangements, pay rental fees and for notifications and distributions.

6.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION – CITY AS LEAD

6.2.1 The City has an internal group called the Public Consultation Unit (PCU) that provides full-service public consultation planning, design and facilitation support. Public Consultation will be delivered by the PCU.

6.2.2 City staff will act as a one-window contact for the public. City staff will be responsible for responding to written, verbal or media inquiries.

6.2.3 The Successful Proponent will be required to provide support to the Public Consultation Unit.

6.2.4 PCU will provide deliver a number of activities, including but not limited to:

a. Development of a Public Consultation and Notification plan;

b. Development and operation of a Project web page on the City's website;

c. Identification of key stakeholders and management of a City mailing list;

d. Briefing and coordination with local Councillor;

e. Advance planning for public events, and the promotional activities surrounding these events;

f. Facilitation support and logistics for public events including arranging for meeting locations, attendance tracking, etc.;

g. Ongoing coordination with City staff and the Successful Proponent in the production of materials for public consultation activities (e.g. flyers, fact sheets, newsletters). PCU shall print all materials and will be responsible for distribution to the public,: and

h. Corresponding with the public and responding to written, verbal, or media enquiries. Occasional support or assistance from the consultant may be sought

i. Lead and manage consultation with any aboriginal communities that may have an interest in the Project. The documented results of these efforts will be provided to the Vendor for inclusion in the Record of Consultation and to be summarized in the consultation summary section of the EA report.

6.2.5 The City will directly arrange and pay for:

VIEWING C

OPY




a. All costs associated with the printing and distribution of notices

b. The placement of newspaper advertisements

c. The booking of venues for public events

d. Facilitating public events

6.2.6 The Successful Proponent will be required to pay for:

a. Printing of display boards and mapping, if required.

6.2.7 The Successful Proponent will support the work of the City's Public Consultation Unit and provide technical support at all public and stakeholder meetings. This support is to include, but not limited to:

a. Support in the preparation of display boards, drawings, and/or presentations (i.e. Power Point);

b. Development of excellent quality images and maps to be used to inform the public about the changes taking place in their community;

c. Support in the development of consultation notices and written materials;

d. The Consultant will be responsible for preparing draft responses to comments and enquiries received from the public, agencies, media and other interested parties, with input and final review by the City, and must include the responses in the final report and Project file.

e. Attendance of relevant technical experts at all meetings to present technical issues and/or answer technical questions;

f. Support in preparing responses to written, verbal inquiries with timely and effective information or action;

g. Compiling minutes and meeting notes on issues raised at Project/TAC/Stakeholder meetings and PICs; and

h. Coordination and participation in direct stakeholder (one-on-one) meetings that may be needed to address individual interests and construction impacts.

6.2.8 To allow for sufficient review time and revision completion, all public information materials must be drafted at least five weeks prior to publication. This, and other review periods, should be reflected in the schedule submitted with the proposal. Production of public information materials will follow City guidelines, to be provided by PCU. Delivery of information materials production will follow a minimum schedule as follows:

a. 7 weeks before public event - Proposed outline of key content;

b. 5 weeks before public event - Complete draft materials for City review;

c. 4 weeks before issuance of customer surveys – Complete draft survey questions, and proposed geographical coverage for City review;

d. 3 weeks before public event - Finalized materials delivered for City to publish online in order to correspond with public notification;

e. 2 weeks before public event - Public notice issued (City);

f. 1 week before public event - Materials optimized for print/slides for City review; and

g. Day of Public Event - Materials printed and presented.

6.2.9 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) must be complied with. All public information materials prepared by the Vendor, to be posted on the City's website, must conform with World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level A in accordance with the AODA Integrated Accessibility Standards. The Vendor must supply the web version of materials (panels, presentation, final reports) in 5 megabytes or smaller PFDs.

VIEWING C

OPY




6.2.10 The successful Vendor's logo can appear on the bottom of the first and last page of powerpoint presentations and on the study introduction display board.

VIEWING C

OPY




SECTION 7 REFERENCES 7.1 CURRENT STUDIES AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

7.1.1 The following section describes some of the related activities currently underway or recently completed within Toronto. Some may only have a minor impact on the proposed Project. The information has been made available to provide perspective on the current situation.

Completed or ongoing projects

a. Information of on-going Investigations of Chronic Basement Flooding Class Environmental Assessment Studies are available in the City’s website at: https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/public-consultations/infrastructure-projects/basement-flooding-investigation-environmental-assessment-studies/

b. Information of completed Investigations of Chronic Basement Flooding Class Environmental Assessment Studies are available in the City’s website at: https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/public-consultations/infrastructure-projects/completed-basement-flooding-environmental-assessment-studies/

c. Preliminary design reports prepared as part of the Basement Flooding Protection Program.

d. The City’s mandatory downspout disconnection by-law required roof leader disconnection in combined sewer areas, chronic basement flooding areas, and the remainder of the city by November 20, 2011, December 3, 2013, and December 3, 2016 respectively.

e. To ensure the ongoing proper operation of the City's drainage systems, Toronto Water continually inspects the existing sewer systems using CCTV inspections. Problem areas are rectified through cleaning, repairing, and replacing components of the system to ensure they function as per their original design. Available CCTV camera inspection information is stored by the City using InfoNet and will be provided to the Proponent as requested.

f. A “Basement Flooding Protection Subsidy Program” is available to assist residential homeowners to install flood protection devices which include a backwater valve, sump pump, pipe surveillance and capping of weeping tile connection. For more details visit the website: https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/water-environment/managing-rain-melted-snow/basement-flooding/how-to-prevent-basement-flooding/

g. GIS-Based Hydrologic and Hydraulic Models, in InfoWorks ICM (version as of 2018), for Sanitary Trunk Sewer/Combined Sewer Systems in the City of Toronto are available for all parts of the City and they are available to consultant that is working on a City project. These models are developed or consolidated with the models developed through the Basement Flooding EA studies for the purposes of wastewater collection system capacity assessment by the City's in-house modelling team. Although the stormwater sewer networks are included in the combined sewer system area model, the details of the stormwater subcatchments and catch basins, and runoff parameters are not included in the models. No stormwater sewer networks are included in the separated sewer system area modelling.

h. The City has been using the InfoWorks CS (and updated to ICM in 2016) model for the annual CSO reporting to Environment Canada, since 2013, after the Federal Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations was enacted on July 2012 . This model was developed via the Don River and Central Waterfront Project EA study completed in 2012. In this model, areas, contributing flows to the City's combined sewer system, were modelled on a large scale with lumped drainage catchments. The model was used to determine flows contributing to the combined sewer system with pipe size greater than or equal to 750 mm dia. under dry weather and wet weather during a typical year, and the 2 and 5-year design storms.

i. The City of Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Guidelines are in the process of being updated. These updated guidelines are expected to be completed in 2019.

VIEWING C

OPY




j. The City is in the process of updating its Modelling Guidelines Update. Completion of this effort is expected in 2019.

k. Toronto Water has retained a consultant to rehabilitate and upgrade 8 pumping stations: Bloor (Storm), Islington (Storm), Martin Grove (Storm), Roxborough (Sanitary), Todmorden (Sanitary), Hanlans Point (Sanitary), Maclean (Combined Sewer Overflow Detention Tank) and Kenilworth (Combined Sewer Overflow Detention Tank).

7.2 CITY REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND STANDARDS

7.2.1 The following reference documents for viewing either online or at Metro Hall via an appointment. To review the reference documents, please contact Mr. Kirill Cheiko, P.Eng., Engineering and Construction Services at 416-338-5556 or at [email protected]. The following is a list of documents available for viewing:

a. Work Plan for Addressing Basement Flooding, Toronto Water Staff Report to the Works Committee, February 23, 2006, is available on the City website at http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/committees/wks/wks060307/it025.pdf.

b. Reports of completed EA studies and information for on-going basement flooding EA studies, and implementation efforts. Hard copies are available for viewing and electronic summaries are available on-line at the City website at https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/public-consultations/infrastructure-projects/basement-flooding-investigation-environmental-assessment-studies/

c. Preliminary Design Reports prepared as part of the previous Basement Flooding programs.

d. Wet Weather Flow Master Plan and Basement Flooding Protection Program Update Staff Report (August 12, 2011) http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2011.PW7.6

e. Expansion of the Basement Flooding Protection Program's Priority Study Areas Staff Report (October 30, 2013) http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-63918.pdf

f. Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, Combined Sewer System Sewershed, CH2M HILL and MacViro Limited, Final Report, July 2003.

g. Study Area 1: Combined Sewer Service area, Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. Report prepared for City of Toronto in 2003 by CH2M Hill and MacViro.

h. Study Area 2: Etobicoke Creek and Mimico Creek Watersheds, Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. Report prepared for City of Toronto in 2003 by Totten Simms Hubicki Associates

i. Study Area 3: Humber River Watershed area excluding the combined sewer area, Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. Report prepared for City of Toronto in 2003 by XCG Consultants Limited.

j. Study Area 4: Don River Watershed, Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. Report prepared for City of Toronto in 2003 by MMM Group.

k. Study Area 5: Highland Creek and Rouge River Watersheds, Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. Report prepared for City of Toronto in 2003 by Aquafor Beech Limited.

l. Wet Weather Flow Management Guidelines, City of Toronto, November 2006 is available on City website at: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/9191-wwfm-guidelines-2006-AODA.pdf

VIEWING C

OPY




m. Don River and Central Waterfront Project - Class Environmental Assessment”, August 2012 – The Don and Waterfront sanitary trunks (Low Level Interceptor, High Level Interceptor, and Mid-Toronto Interceptor) are vital to the City of Toronto as they serve the City’s main downtown financial and business district, commercial buildings, institutions, entertainment districts, and major residential and commercial neighbourhoods upstream. This initiative evaluated both dry and wet weather capacity requirements for the Don trunk system, the Waterfront trunk interceptors, and the Lakefront and Queen Street trunk sewers, to develop a system-wide combined sewer overflow control strategy with storage and treatment, and optimization of operational changes, ultimately, to improve the water quality of the Lower Don River and the Lake Ontario waterfront. The InfoWorks CS computer model was used to simulate the hydrologic and hydraulic sewer systems for the Don and Waterfront Interceptors. The computer model and findings from that EA study may be used as reference.

n. City of Toronto Borehole Database, Golder Associates, December 2001.

o. The City of Toronto’s Standard Construction Specifications & Drawings for Sewers, Watermains and Roads is available for purchase on CD.

p. Confined Space Entry Procedures.

q. The City’s Health and Safety Procedures.

r. Notification Guide for Design and Construction Projects, City of Toronto, Works and Emergency Services, June 2002.

s. Engineering Survey Standards for Consultants (Version 2.0), City of Toronto, Technical Services.

t. Toronto Official Plan, June 2015

u. The City of Toronto’s Construction Specifications & Drawings for Road Works

v. City of Toronto Green Standard, is available on the City website at: https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/toronto-green-standard/

w. City of Toronto Accessibility Design Guidelines, 2004.

x. Green Streets Technical Guidelines, November 2017, is available on the City website at: https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/enhancing-our-streets-and-public-realm/green-streets/

7.3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

7.3.1 The Professional Services Performance Evaluation Form will be used to assess the performance of the Vendor on the Project(s). Once completed, the evaluation will be forwarded to the Operating Division and Engineering and Construction Services, for information and/or appropriate action. VIEWIN

G COPY




SECTION 8 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – STANDARD PROJECT SCOPE REQUIREMENTS - AttachmentA.1 General Requirements

A.2 Health and Safety (including Designated Substances)

A.3 Approvals

A.4 Drawings and Standards

A.5 Class EA

A.6 Studies – N/A

A.7 Pre-Design

Engineering Survey Standards for Consultants (Version 2.5)

APPENDIX B - RFP PROCESS TERMS AND CONDITIONS

APPENDIX C - SUBMISSION FORMS

APPENDIX D - SPECIMEN CONTRACT AGREEMENT, INCLUDING INSURANCE FORMS

APPENDIX E - PROJECT REFERENCE MATERIAL - AttachmentE.1 Figures and Maps

E.2 Work Plan for the Engineering Review Addressing Basement Flooding

E.3 BFPP GPA2 Schema and Guide

E.4 BFPP Modelling Guideline

InfoWorks Modelling Guidelines v1.02 (October 2014)

Combined Sewer Modelling Methodology Memo

Perforated Manhole Modelling Guidelines

Dual Manhole Modelling Methodology

Roof Drainage Modelling Guideline

E.5 Cost Per Benefitting Property Guide

E.6 Sample Scope Management Document

E.7 Surveyed Flow Control Structures and Sample Forms

List of FCS surveyed by City of Toronto

Sample CSO survey form

E.8 PDR Checklists

PDR Checklist for CADD

PDR Checklist for Designer

PDR Checklist for Field Surveyor

PDR Checklist for Modeller

PDR Checklist for the Report

30% Drawing Submission Requirements Checklist

APPENDIX F – DIGITAL DATA RELEASE FORM

VIEWING C

OPY

APPENDIX B

RFP PROCESS TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Proponent’s Responsibility It shall be the responsibility of each Proponent: (a) to examine all the components of this RFP, including all appendices, forms and addenda; (b) to acquire a clear and comprehensive knowledge of the required services before submitting a

Proposal; (c) to become familiar, and (if it becomes a successful Proponent) comply, with all of the City’s

Policies and Legislation set out on the City of Toronto website at: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=6281a73f0243b510VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

The failure of any Proponent to receive or examine any document, form, addendum, Agreement or policy shall not relieve the Proponent of any obligation with respect to its Proposal or any Agreement entered into or Purchase Order issued based on the Proponent’s Proposal. 2. Prime Proponent A Proposal by a consortium of two or more entities may be submitted, but one person or company must be shown as the prime Proponent and be prepared to represent the consortium to the City by executing the Agreement, acting as the primary contact, and taking overall responsibility for performance of the Agreement. Where a Proposal is made by a prime Proponent with associate firms working with or under the prime Proponent in either a sub-contracting or consortium relationship, it is required that those associate firms be named in the Proposal. 3. City Contacts and Questions All contact and questions concerning this RFP should be directed in writing to the City employee(s) designated as “City Contact” in the Notice to Potential Proponents. No City representative, whether an official, agent or employee, other than those identified “City Contacts” are authorized to speak for the City with respect to this RFP, and any Proponent who uses any information, clarification or interpretation from any other representative does so entirely at the Proponent’s own risk. Not only shall the City not be bound by any representation made by an unauthorized person, but any attempt by a Proponent to bypass the RFP process may be grounds for rejection of its Proposal. From and after the date of this RFP until the time of any ensuing contract award, no communication with respect to this matter shall be made by any potential Proponent, or its representatives, including a third-party representative employed or retained by it (or any unpaid representatives acting on behalf of either), to promote its Proposal or oppose any competing Proposal, nor shall any potential Proponent, or its representatives, including a third party representative employed or retained by it (or any unpaid representatives acting on behalf of either), discuss the RFP or its Proposal with any City staff, City officials or Council member(s), other than a communication with the "City Contact" identified on page 1 on this RFP. Proponents should be aware that communications in relation to this RFP outside of those permitted by the applicable procurement policies and this RFP document contravene the Lobbying By-law, an offence for which a person is liable to a maximum fine of $25,000.00 on a first conviction and

VIEWING C

OPY

$100,000.00 on each subsequent conviction. In addition, the City's Supplier Code of Conduct provides that any Proponent found in breach of the policy may be subject to disqualification from the call or a future call or calls at the discretion of Council. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary as set out in this document, the obligations as set out in the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 140 shall apply. For your information, please find below the links to the City's Procurement Processes Policy, Lobbying By-Law and Interpretive Bulletin on Lobbying and Procurement: http://www.toronto.ca/citybusiness/pdf/policy_procurement_process.pdf http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_140.pdf http://www.toronto.ca/lobbying/pdf/interpretation-bulleting_lobbying-procurements.pdf 4. Addenda If the City, for any reason, determines that it is necessary to revise any part of this RFP or to provide additional information relating to this RFP, such information will be communicated to all Proponents by addenda. Each addendum shall form an integral part of this RFP. Such addenda may contain important information, including significant changes to this RFP. Proponents are responsible for obtaining all addenda issued by the City. All Proponents must acknowledge receipt of all Addenda in the space provided on the Proposal Submission Form. The City reserves the right to revise this RFP up to the Closing Deadline. If any addendum is issued after the Deadline for Issuing Addenda, the City may at its discretion extend the Closing Deadline for a reasonable amount of time. The City’s Purchasing and Materials Management Division will make reasonable efforts to issue the final Addendum (if any) no later than two (2) days prior to the Deadline. 5. Exceptions to Mandatory Requirements, Terms and Conditions If a Proponent wishes to suggest a change to any mandatory requirement, term or condition set forth in any part of this RFP, it should notify the City in writing not later than the deadline for questions. The Proponent must clearly identify any such requirement, term or condition, the proposed change and the reason for it. If the City wishes to accept the proposed change, the City will issue an Addendum as described in the article above titled Addenda. The decision of the City shall be final and binding, from which there is no appeal. Changes to mandatory requirements, terms and conditions that have not been accepted by the City by the issuance of an Addendum are not permitted and any Proposal that takes exception to or does not comply with the mandatory requirements, terms and conditions of this RFP will be rejected. 6. Omissions, Discrepancies and Interpretations A Proponent who finds omissions, discrepancies, ambiguities or conflicts in any of the RFP documentation or who is in doubt as to the meaning of any part of the RFP should notify the City in writing not later than the deadline for questions. If the City considers that a correction, explanation or interpretation is necessary or desirable, the City will issue an Addendum as described in the article above titled Addenda. The decision and interpretation of the City shall be final and binding, from which there is no appeal. No oral explanation or interpretation shall modify any of the requirements or provisions of the RFP documents.

VIEWING C

OPY

7. Proponents Shall Bear Their Own Costs Every Proponent shall bear all costs associated with or incurred by the Proponent in the preparation and presentation of its Proposal including, if applicable, costs incurred for interviews, demonstrations, or any other activity that may be requested as part of the evaluation process or the process for the negotiation or execution of an Agreement with the City, as the case may be.

8. Limitation of Liability The City shall not be liable for any costs, expenses, loss or damage incurred, sustained or suffered by any Proponent prior, or subsequent to, or by reason of the acceptance or the non-acceptance by the City of any Proposal, or by reason of any delay in acceptance of a Proposal, except as provided in this RFP. 9. Post-Submission Adjustments and Withdrawal of Proposals No unilateral adjustments by Proponents to submitted Proposals will be permitted. At any time throughout the RFP process, a Proponent may withdraw a submitted Proposal prior to the Closing Deadline. To effect a withdrawal, a notice of withdrawal must be sent to the City Contact and must be signed by an authorized representative of the Proponent. The City is under no obligation to return withdrawn Proposals. A Proponent who has withdrawn a Proposal may submit a new Proposal, but only in accordance with the terms of this RFP. 10. Binding Proposal

After the Closing Deadline each submitted Proposal shall be irrevocable and binding on Proponents for a period of 120 days.

11. Acceptance of Proposals The City shall not be obliged to accept any Proposal in response to this RFP. The City may, without incurring any liability or cost to any Proponent: (a) accept or reject any or all Proposal(s) at any time; (b) waive immaterial defects and minor irregularities in any Proposals; (c) modify and/or cancel this RFP prior to accepting any Proposal; (d) award a contract in whole or in part. The City is relying on the experience and expertise of the Proponent. The City reserves the right to disqualify any Proponent who has given inaccurate, incomplete, false or misleading information in the sole opinion of the City. Proponents and their Affiliated Persons that are currently on a City of Toronto suspended vendor list are not eligible for an award. 12. Verify, Clarify and Supplement When evaluating proposals, the City may request further information from the Proponent or third parties in order to verify, clarify or supplement the information provided in the Proponent's Proposal. The City may revisit and re-evaluate the Proponent’s Proposal or ranking on the basis of any such information. If the City makes a request to a Proponent for clarification of its Proposal, the Proponent will provide a written response accordingly, which shall then form part of the Proposal.

VIEWING C

OPY

If, in the opinion of the City, any Proponent has clearly misinterpreted the services or underestimated the hours or value of the services to be performed as reflected in its Proposal content and submitted price/fees, or all or any or any combination of them, then the City may reject its Proposal as not representative of the scope of the services). 13. No Incorporation by Reference The entire content of the Proponent's Proposal should be submitted in a fixed form and the content of websites or other external documents referred to in the Proponent's Proposal will not be considered to form part of its Proposal. 14. Unbalanced Bids (In this paragraph “Bid” refers to the Proposal) The City may reject a bid if it determines, in its sole discretion, that the bid is materially imbalanced. A bid is materially imbalanced when: (a) it is based on prices which are significantly less than cost for some items of work and prices which

are significantly overstated in relation to cost for other items of work; and (b) the City had determined that the proposal may not result in the lowest overall cost to the City even

though it may be the lowest submitted bid; or (c) it is so unbalanced as to be tantamount to allowing an advance payment. 15. Ownership and Confidentiality of City-Provided Data All correspondence, documentation and information provided by City staff to any Proponent or prospective Proponent in connection with, or arising out of this RFP, the Services or the acceptance of any Proposal: (a) is and shall remain the property of the City; (b) must be treated by Proponents and prospective Proponents as confidential; (c) must not be used for any purpose other than for replying to this RFP, and for fulfillment of any

related subsequent Agreement. 16. Ownership and Disclosure of Proposal Documentation (a) The documentation comprising any Proposal submitted in response to this RFP, along with all correspondence, documentation and information provided to the City by any Proponent in connection with, or arising out of this RFP, once received by the City:

i) shall become the property of the City and may be appended to the Agreement and/or Purchase Order with the successful Proponent;

ii) shall become subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ("MFIPPA"), and may be released, pursuant to that Act. (b) Because of MFIPPA, Proponents should identify in their Proposal material any scientific,

technical, commercial, proprietary or similar confidential information, the disclosure of which could cause them injury.

(c) Each Proponent’s name at a minimum shall be made public. (d) Proposals will be made available to members of City Council provided that their requests have

been made in accordance with the City’s procedure and may be released to members of the public pursuant to MFIPPA.

VIEWING C

OPY

(e) The City will not return the Proposal or any accompanying documentation submitted by a Proponent.

17. Intellectual Property Rights Each Proponent warrants that the information contained in its Proposal does not infringe any intellectual property right of any third party and agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City, its staff and its consultants, if any, against all claims, actions, suits and proceedings, including all costs incurred by the City brought by any person in respect of the infringement or alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property right in connection with their Proposal. 18. Failure or Default of Proponent If the Proponent, for any reason, fails or defaults in respect of any matter or thing which is an obligation of the Proponent under the terms of the RFP, the City may disqualify the Proponent from the RFP and/or from competing for future tenders or RFP issued by the City for a period of one year. In addition, the City may at its option either: (a) Consider that the Proponent has withdrawn any offer made, or abandoned the Agreement if the

offer has been accepted, whereupon the acceptance, if any, of the City shall be null and void; or (b) Consider that the Proponent has abandoned any Agreement and require the Proponent to pay the

City the difference between its Proposal and any other Proposal which the City accepts, if the latter is for a greater amount and, in addition, to pay the City any cost which the City may incur by reason of the Proponent’s failure or default, and further the Proponent will indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents from all loss, damage, liability, cost, charge and expense whatever which it, they or any of them may suffer, incur or be put to by reason of such default or failure of the Proponent. The Proponent shall be ineligible to submit a new Proposal or bid for any Call that the City is required to reissue as a result of the Proponent's failure or default or where the City deems that the Proponent has abandoned the Agreement.

19. Publicity The Proponent and its affiliates, associates, third-party service providers, and subcontractors shall not release for publication any information in connection with this RFP or any Agreement without prior written permission of the City. 20. Selection of Top-Ranked Proponent(s) The top-ranked Proponent(s), as established under the evaluation that are selected by the City to enter onto an agreement pending award will be so notified by the City in writing.

21. Notification to Other Proponents Once the recommended Proponent(s) is notified of their selection, the other Proponents will be notified by the City in writing of the outcome of the RFP process.

22. Debriefing Proponents may request a debriefing after receipt of a notification of the outcome of the selection process. All requests must be in writing to the City Contact and must be made within sixty (60) days of notification of the outcome of the selection process. The intent of the debriefing information session is to aid the

VIEWING C

OPY

Proponent in presenting a better proposal in subsequent procurement opportunities. Any debriefing provided is not for the purpose of providing an opportunity to challenge the RFP process. 23. No Contract until Execution of Written Agreement No legal relationship or obligation regarding the procurement of any good or service shall be created between the Proponent and the City by the RFP process until the selection of the Proponent to provide the Deliverables pursuant to an Agreement. 24. Cancellation The City may cancel or amend the RFP process without liability at any time. 25. Bid Protest Procedure (a) Pre-award bid disputes. Proponents should seek a resolution of any pre-award dispute by communicating directly with the City Contact as soon as possible from the time when the basis for the dispute became known to them. The City Contact may delay the outcome of the selection process, or any interim stage of this RFP process, pending the acknowledgement and resolution of any pre-award dispute. For more information, see the Pre-Award and Post-Award Bid Dispute Procedure. (b) Post-award bid disputes. Any dispute to the outcome of this RFP process must be received in writing by the City Contact no later than ten (10) days after the date of the notification of the outcome of the selection process, or where a debriefing has been requested, no later than five (5) days after such debriefing is received. Any dispute that is not timely received or in writing will not receive further consideration. Any written dispute with a procurement value over $100,000 that cannot be resolved by the City Contact through consultations with the Proponent, shall be referred to the Treasurer or their designate(s) for an impartial review, based on the following information: i. A specific description of each act or omission alleged to have materially breached the procurement process; ii. A specific identification of the provision in the solicitation or procurement procedure that is alleged to have been breached; iii. A precise statement of the relevant facts; iv. An identification of the issues to be resolved; v. The Proponent's arguments, including any relevant supporting documentation; and vi. The Proponent's requested remedial action. The Treasurer or their designate(s), in consultation with the City Solicitor, may: i. Dismiss the dispute; ii. Accept the dispute and direct the City Contact to take appropriate remedial action, including, but not limited to, rescinding the award and any executed contract, and canceling the solicitation. For more information, see the Pre-Award and Post-Award Bid Dispute Procedure.

VIEWING C

OPY

26. Supplier Code of Conduct (a) Honesty and Good Faith

Proponents must respond to the City's RFP in an honest, fair and comprehensive manner that accurately reflects their capacity to satisfy the requirements stipulated in the RFP. Proponents shall submit a Proposal only if they know they can satisfactorily perform all obligations of the contract in good faith. Proponets shall alert the Buyer to any factual errors, omissions and ambiguities that they discover in the RFP as early as possible in the process to avoid the RFP being cancelled.

(b) Confidentiality and Disclosure Proponents must maintain confidentiality of any confidential City information disclosed to the Proponent as part of the RFP.

(c) Conflicts of Interest and Unfair Advantage Proponents must declare and fully disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest or unfair advantage related to the preparation of their bid or where the Proponent foresees an actual or potential conflict of interest in the performance of the contract.

(d) Collusion or Unethical Bidding Practices No Proponent may discuss or communicate, directly or indirectly, with any other Proponent or their Affiliated Persons about the preparation of their Bid including, but not limited to, any connection, comparison of figures or arrangements with, or knowledge of any other supplier making a submission for the same work. Proponents shall disclose to the Buyer any affiliations or other relationships with other Proponents that might be seen to compromise the principle of fair competition, including any proposed subcontracting relationships.

(e) Illegality A Proponent shall disclose to the Buyer any previous convictions of itself or its Affiliated Persons for collusion, bid-rigging, price-fixing, bribery, fraud or other similar behaviours or practices prohibited under the Criminal Code, the Competition Act or other applicable law, for which they have not received a pardon.

(f) Interference Prohibited No Proponent may threaten, intimidate, harass, or otherwise interfere with any City employee or public office holder in relation to their procurement duties. No Proponent may likewise threaten, intimidate, harass, or otherwise interfere with an attempt by any other prospective Proponent to bid for a City contract or to perform any contract awarded by the City.

(g) Gifts of Favours Prohibited No Proponent shall offer gifts, favours or inducements of any kind to City employees or public office holders, or otherwise attempt to influence or interfere with their duties in relation to the RFP or management of a contract.

(h) Misrepresentations Prohibited Proponents are prohibited from misrepresenting their relevant experience and qualifications in relation to the RFP and acknowledge that the City's process of evaluation may include information provided by the Proponent's references as well as records of past performance on previous contracts with the City or other public bodies.

(i) Prohibited Communications No Proponent, or Affiliated Person, may discuss or communicate either verbally, or in writing, with any employee, public office holder, or the media in relation to any solicitation between the time of the issuance

VIEWING C

OPY

of the RFP to the award and execution of final form of contract, unless such communication is with the Buyer and is in compliance with Chapter 140, Lobbying of the Municipal Code.

(j) Failure to Honour Bid Proponents shall honour their Bid, except where they are permitted to withdraw their bid in accordance with the process described in the RFP. Proponents shall not refuse to enter into a contract or refuse to fully perform the contract once their bid has been accepted by the City.

(k) Proponent Performance Proponents shall fully perform their contracts with the City and follow any reasonable direction from the City to cure any default. Proponents shall maintain a satisfactory performance rating on their Contracts with the City and other public bodies to be qualified to be awarded similar contracts.

(l) Disqualification for Non-Compliance with Supplier Code of Conduct Proponents shall be required to certify compliance with the Supplier Code of Conduct in the RFP Submission Form 1 (Appendix C), with their Bid and verify compliance, upon request from the Buyer, prior to award. Any contravention of the Supplier Code of Conduct by a Proponent, including any failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest or unfair advantages, may be grounds for the Chief Purchasing Official to disqualify a Proponent from the RFP and suspend the Proponent from future procurements.

27. Governing Law and Interpretation The terms and conditions in this Appendix A - Terms and Conditions of RFP Process: (a) are included for greater certainty and intended to be interpreted broadly and separately (with no particular provision intended to limit the scope of any other provision); (b) are non-exhaustive (and shall not be construed as intending to limit the pre-existing rights of the parties to engage in pre-contractual discussions in accordance with the common law governing direct commercial negotiations); and (c) are to be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein.

VIEWING C

OPY

APPENDIX C

STANDARD SUBMISSION FORMS

FORM 1: Proposal Submission Form – Mandatory

FORM 2: Notice of No Submission – If Applicable

VIEWING C

OPY

FORM 1

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 9117-18-7752 FOR: BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM (BFPP) CAPACITY ASSESSMENT STUDIES STUDY AREAS 46-61, AND 63-67 TWO-ENVELOPE SYSTEM CLOSING: March 27, 2019, 12:00 NOON (LOCAL TORONTO TIME)

PROPONENT INFORMATION

Please complete following form, and name one (1) authorized person to be the contact for the procurement process and for any clarifications or amendments that might be necessary.

Full Legal Name of Proponent:

Any Other Trade Name under Which the Proponent Carries on Business:

Street Address:

City, Province/State:

Postal Code:

Phone Number:

Fax Number:

Company Website (If Any):

Contact Person and Title:

Contact Phone:

Contact Facsimile:

Contact E-mail:

1. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TERMS, CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

By signing this form the Proponent agrees that if selected to provide the goods and/or services described in this Request for Proposal document, they will provide those goods and/or services in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the Request for Proposal document and in accordance with the Proponent's proposal submission.

2. POLICIES The Proponent has read, understood and agrees to comply with the policies, practices and statements found on the City’s website at the following link:

VIEWING C

OPY

http://insideto.toronto.ca/purchasing/index.htm Without limiting the Proponent's acknowledgement of the City's general procurement policies, by signing this form, the Proponent acknowledges and certifies that the Proponent, and any of its proposed subcontractors, will provide the goods and/or services in compliance with the following specific policies:

3. 1 POLICY TO EXCLUDE BIDS FROM EXTERNAL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC CALL/REQUEST Did you, the proponent, assist the City of Toronto in the preparation of this Request for Proposal call? Specify: Yes _______ No _________ For a copy of the City of Toronto Policy, visit the website: POLICY TO EXCLUDE BIDS FROM EXTERNAL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF A SPECIFIC CALL/REQUEST

3.2 RESTRICTIONS ON THE HIRING AND USE OF FORMER CITY OF TORONTO EMPLOYEES FOR CITY CONTRACTS Proponents are to state the name(s) of any former City of Toronto management employee(s) hired/used by your firm, if any, who have left the employ of the City or its special purpose bodies within the last two years. Specify: _________________________________________________________________ This policy will be considered in the evaluation of all submissions received by the City of Toronto in addition to any other potential conflicts of interest and unfair advantages identified in the RFP. For a copy of the City of Toronto Policy, visit the website: RESTRICTIONS ON THE HIRING AND USE OF FORMER CITY OF TORONTO MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES FOR CITY CONTRACTS 3.3 RIGHT TO REJECT DEBTORS AND SET OFF POLICY For a copy of the City of Toronto Policy, visit the website: RIGHT TO REJECT DEBTORS AND SET OFF POLICY

VIEWING C

OPY

3.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE PROCUREMENT STATEMENT For a copy of the City of Toronto Environmentally Responsible Procurement Policy, visit the website: ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE PROCUREMENT STATEMENT State if environmentally preferred products/service is being offered: YES______ NO______ State briefly the environmental benefit of the product/service offered: __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

3.5 DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH ANTI-HARASSMENT/DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION & CITY POLICY Organizations/individuals in Ontario, including the City of Toronto, have obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Employment Standards Act, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, the Criminal Code of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition, the City of Toronto also has policies that prohibit discrimination on the additional grounds of political affiliation or level of literacy, subject to the requirements of the Charter. Organizations are required to have and post policies, programs, information, instruction, plans and/or other supports, and an appropriate internal process available to their employees and service recipients to prevent, address and remedy discrimination, racism, harassment, hate and inaccessibility complaints under the applicable legislation and including the additional grounds of discrimination prohibited under City policy. Individuals are obliged to refrain from harassment/hate activity. The City of Toronto requires all organizations and individuals that contract with the City to sign the following Declaration of Compliance with Anti-Harassment/Discrimination Legislation & City Policy. This Declaration must be signed by your organization and submitted with the contract or Letter of Understanding. The name of your organization and the fact that you have signed this declaration may be included in a public report to City Council. Declaration:

I/we uphold our obligations under the above provincial and federal legislation. In addition, I/we uphold our obligations under City policies which prohibit harassment/discrimination on a number of grounds including political affiliation and level of literacy. WHERE LEGALLY MANDATED I/we have in place the necessary policies, programs, information, instruction, plans and/or other supports that are consistent with our obligations, and I/we have an internal process available to my/our employees and service recipients to prevent, address and remedy discrimination, racism, harassment, hate and inaccessibility complaints. I/we agree that I/we shall, upon the request of the City, provide evidence of the policies, programs, information, instruction, plans and other supports and an appropriate internal complaint resolution process required under this Declaration which is sufficient to allow the City to determine compliance. I/We acknowledge that failure to demonstrate compliance with this declaration to the satisfaction of the operating Division, in consultation with the City Solicitor, may result in the termination of the contract.

VIEWING C

OPY

3.6 DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF TORONTO FAIR WAGE AND LABOUR TRADES POLICY By signing this form, the proponent acknowledges and certifies that the proponent, and any of its proposed subcontractors, will provide the services in compliance with the City's Fair Wage and Labour Trades Policy. The policy and schedules are available on the Fair Wage Office website – www.toronto.ca/fairwage

3.7 ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS POLICY For a copy of the City of Toronto Policy, visit the website: ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS POLICY

3. OTHER CONFLICT OF INTERESTS OR PROHIBITED CONDUCT The City may prohibit a proponent from participating in a procurement process, or from being awarded a contract based on past performance or based on inappropriate conduct in a prior procurement process or resulting contract, and such inappropriate conduct shall include but not be limited to the following:

(a) the submission of quotations containing misrepresentations or any other inaccurate, misleading or incomplete information;

(b) the refusal of the proponent to honour its pricing or other commitments made in a proposal or bid; (c) the proponent has communicated or entered into an agreement or arrangement with other

proponents or suppliers in relation to this procurement process without the knowledge of the City's Chief Purchasing Official;

(d) the proponent or its affiliated persons have previous convictions for collusion, price fixing, bribery, fraud or similar behaviour or practices prohibited by applicable law;

(e) the proponent has threatened, intimidated or harassed other prospective suppliers or City staff in relation to an existing or proposed City contract;

(f) the proponent has offered gifts or favours (including employment) to City staff, Councillors or other officials which might influence or interfere with their official duties with the City;

(g) the proponent or any persons retained by the proponent has attempted to communicate or lobby any City staff or Councillors to obtain a contract, except for such communications as are explicitly permitted with the Chief Purchasing Official under the City's Lobbyist Registry By-law; or

(h) any other conduct, situation or circumstance, as solely determined by the City, that constitutes a Conflict of Interest.

For the purposes of this section, the term “Conflict of Interest” means

(a) in relation to the procurement process, the proponent has an unfair advantage or engages in conduct, directly or indirectly, that may give it an unfair advantage, including but not limited to (i) having, or having access to, confidential information of the City in the preparation of its proposal that is not available to other proponents, (ii) communicating with any person with a view to influencing preferred treatment in the procurement process (including but not limited to the

VIEWING C

OPY

lobbying of decision makers involved in the procurement process), or (iii) engaging in conduct that compromises, or could be seen to compromise, the integrity of the procurement process; or

(b) in relation to the performance of its contractual obligations contemplated in the contract that is the subject of this procurement, the proponent’s other commitments, relationships or financial interests (i) could, or could be seen to, exercise an improper influence over the objective, unbiased and impartial exercise of its independent judgment, or (ii) could, or could be seen to, compromise, impair or be incompatible with the effective performance of its contractual obligations.

If the box below is left blank, the proponent will be deemed to declare that (a) there was no Conflict of Interest or other prohibited conduct in connection with preparing its proposal; and (b) there is no foreseeable Conflict of Interest in performing the contractual obligations contemplated in the procurement process. The proponent declares that there is an actual or potential Conflict of Interest relating to the preparation of its proposal, and/or the proponent foresees an actual or potential Conflict of Interest in performing the contractual obligations contemplated in the procurement. If the proponent declares an actual or potential Conflict of Interest or any prohibited conduct, the proponent must set out the details below:

The following individuals, as employees, advisers, or in any other capacity (a) participated in the preparation of our proposal; AND (b) were employees of the City and have ceased that employment within twenty four (24) months prior to the Submission Deadline:

Name of Individual: Job Classification: Department: Last Date of Employment with the City: Name of Last Supervisor: Brief Description of Individual’s Job Functions: Brief Description of Nature of Individual’s Participation in the Preparation of the Proposal:

(Repeat above for each identified individual. Proponents may include this information on a separate sheet if more space is required) The proponent agrees that, upon request, the proponent shall provide the City with additional information from each individual identified above in a form prescribed by the City.

VIEWING C

OPY

4. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION The proponent hereby agrees that any information provided in this proposal, even if it is identified as being supplied in confidence, may be disclosed where required by law or if required by order of a court or tribunal. The proponent hereby consents to the disclosure, on a confidential basis, of this proposal by the City to the City’s advisers retained for the purpose of evaluating or participating in the evaluation of this proposal. The proponent shall provide the City with ongoing disclosure, should the proponent be awarded a contract and any of the information provided above change.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF ADDENDA BY NUMBER AND ISSUE DATE I/WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF: ADDENDUM No(s). TO DATED TO

SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED SIGNING OFFICER _______________________________________________________________________________________ PRINTED NAME OF SIGNING OFFICER

I have authority to bind the proponent and attest to the accuracy of the information provided in this proposal.

THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND SUBMITTED WITH YOUR PROPOSAL OR YOUR PROPOSAL WILL BE DECLARED NON-COMPLIANT.

VIEWING C

OPY

IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ THIS It is important to the City of Toronto to receive a reply from all invited Proponents. There is no obligation to submit a Proposal; however, should you choose not to submit, completion of this form will assist the City in determining the type of services you are interested in submitting a Proposal in the future. INSTRUCTIONS: If you are unable, or do not wish to submit a Proposal on this Request for Proposals, please complete the following portions of this form. State your reason for not submitting a Proposal by checking applicable box(es) or by explaining briefly in the space provided. It is not necessary to return any other Request for Proposals documents. 1. We do not offer this service. Other reasons or additional comments. 2. We do not offer services to these requirements. 3. Unable to offer services competitively. 4. Cannot handle due to present commitments. 5. Quantity/project too large. 6. Cannot meet delivery/completion requirements. 7. Licensing restrictions. Do you wish to participate in Request for Proposals for services in the future? YES ____ NO ____

For City’s use only - Do not write in this space. Company Name:

Address:

Signature of Company Representative:

Position:

Date: Tel. No.: Fax No.:

Send by email: [email protected]

FORM 2

NOTICE OF “NO SUBMISSION”

RFP # : 9117-18-7752 AY

CLOSING DATE: March 27, 2019

VIEWING C

OPY

RFP 9117-18-7752 Basement Flooding Protection Program Capacity Assessment Studies – Study Areas 46-61, and 63-67

v.2018.07.20 1

THIS AGREEMENT made in quadruplicate this ______ day of _____________, 20__ BETWEEN:

CITY OF TORONTO (the “City”)

Of The First Part - and -

[ENTER Consultant’s Full Legal Name]

(the “Consultant”) Of The Second Part

WHEREAS the City issued the RFP in connection with obtaining professional consulting services for Basement Flooding Protection Program Capacity Assessment Studies – Study Areas 46-61, and 63-67 (herein referred to as the "Project"), and the Consultant submitted a Proposal in response to the RFP; and

WHEREAS the Consultant has agreed to perform Services in connection with the Project, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement; and

WHEREAS at its meeting held on [ENTER DATE], the Bid Award Panel adopted the recommendations in the Staff Report from the Director of Purchasing and Materials Management dated [ENTER DATE], and authorized the retention of the Consultant to provide the Services in connection with the Project;

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:

1. INTERPRETATION

(1) The Interpretation provisions of and definitions contained in the RFP are incorporated into and form part of this Agreement.

(2) Definitions

In addition to the foregoing, the following terms shall have the meanings as specified in this section unless the context otherwise specifies or requires:

(a) “Additional Services” are those services which are not contemplated or provided for in the scope of Services set out in the RFP and which are expressly authorized by the Division Head in writing and in advance in accordance with this Agreement.

(b) “Addendum” and “Addenda” means a written addendum or written addenda issued by the City which modify the RFP and include(s) the following:

Addendum No. 1 dated [ENTER DATE] Addendum No. 2 dated [ENTER DATE] Addendum No. 3 dated [ENTER DATE]

(c) “Business Day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a statutory or civic holiday in the Province of Ontario.

(d) “Claims” or “Claim” means any damages, losses, costs, demands, claims, actions, causes of action, suits, proceedings, executions, liens or otherwise for, without limitation, compensation, liabilities, damages or loss of any kind and any nature whatsoever and howsoever caused including property damage or loss, bodily injury or death, loss of reputation, loss of opportunity, economic loss, royalties, judgments, fines, penalties, interest, charges, expenses and costs (including legal costs on a substantial indemnity basis).

(e) “City” means the City of Toronto and where an authority or discretion is conferred upon the City under this Agreement, means the appropriate official or representative of the City as designated or

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 2

appointed under its governing by-laws, resolutions or policies from time to time or under this Agreement.

(f) “Clarification Letter(s)” means a written document issued by the Consultant clarifying its Proposal.

The Consultant's Proposal has been clarified by the following letter(s) of the Consultant:

Letter(s) of the Consultant dated [ENTER DATE] (the “Clarification Letter(s)”).

Each reference in this Agreement to the Consultant’s Proposal (or individually to the Consultant’s Technical Proposal or Cost of Services Proposal) shall be taken as a reference to the respective Proposal as modified by the foregoing Clarification Letter(s).

[INSERT “There has been no clarification made of the Consultant’s Proposal.” where no Clarification Letters

and DELETE box above]

(g) “Confidential Information” means, with respect to the City, all documents, information and material which are identified by the City to the Consultant as confidential or containing confidential information; or which ought by their nature to be considered as confidential or as containing confidential information of the City, which the Consultant and/or its subcontractors receive or are exposed to by reason of this Agreement or performing the Services including: (i) any personal information; (ii) any software code and associated documentation owned or licensed by the City; and (iii) any administrative, commercial, financial, proprietary, technical, commercial labour relations, statistical or regulatory information of the City, or of any third party which may be contained in records of the City and was supplied in confidence to the City and identified as such to the Consultant. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Confidential Information shall not include any document, information or material that is or becomes publicly available through no act or failure of the Consultant from a source other than the Consultant prior to receipt from the City; or becomes independently available to the Consultant as a matter of right.

(h) "Conflict of Interest” means, in relation to the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, the Consultant’s other commitments, relationships or financial interests (i) could or could be seen to exercise an improper influence over the objective, unbiased and impartial exercise of its independent judgement; or (ii) could or could be seen to compromise, impair or be incompatible with the effective performance of its obligations under this Agreement.

(i) “Construction Act” means the Construction Act, R.S.O. c. C.30 and regulations thereunder, as amended from time to time.

(j) “Division Head” means the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services and includes such person’s designate.

(k) “including” means “including but not limited to”.

(l) “Indemnitees” means the City, its elected officials, officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, successors and assigns.

(m) “Optional Item” means an item which has not been set out in the scope of work of the RFP but has been proposed by the Consultant in its Proposal as an enhancement or additional service which may benefit the Project.

(n) “Personnel” means the Consultant’s personnel and includes: (i) the Consultant’s officers, directors, partners, employees, agents and subcontractors; (ii) any person employed or engaged by or under the control of the Consultant or its

subcontractors to perform or supply any part of the Services including goods related thereto; and

(iii) any other person for whom the Consultant is responsible at law.

(o) “Project” means the total scope of works (base and provisional items, study component and preliminary design component) for one Bundle of Study Areas, as specifically defined in RFP No. 9117-18-7752.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 3

(p) “Proposal” means the Consultant’s Technical Proposal dated [ENTER DATE] and Cost of Services Proposal dated [ENTER DATE], including all appendices, exhibits and attachments thereto, submitted in response to the RFP (individually the “Technical Proposal” and the “Cost of Services Proposal”, respectively). Each reference to the Proposal in this Agreement shall be taken as a reference to the Proposal as modified by the Clarification Letter(s), if any.

(q) “Provisional Item” means a Service identified in Schedule A which shall only be undertaken by the Consultant at the request and upon the prior written authorization of the Division Head.

(r) “RFP” means the Request for Proposal No. 9117-18-7752, issued by the City on [ENTER DATE], in connection with obtaining professional consulting services for the Project. Each reference to the RFP in this Agreement shall be taken as a reference to the RFP as modified by the Addenda, if any.

(s) “Services” means those services, and goods related thereto, and obligations detailed in this Agreement, including Schedule A, to be provided and undertaken by the Consultant for the City and shall include Provisional Items and Additional Services, unless the context requires otherwise, authorized by the Division Head in accordance with this Agreement.

(t) “Working Day” shall have the same meaning as set out or described in the RFP and, where there is no meaning or description of Working Day set out in the RFP, it shall have the same meaning as Business Day.

(3) Interpretation

(a) For the purposes of this Agreement, any reference to a “subcontractor” of the Consultant shall include a sub-consultant of the Consultant.

(b) Any reference to the Division Head or other officer or representative of the City shall be construed to mean the person holding that office from time to time, and the designate or deputy of that person, and shall be deemed to include a reference to any person holding a successor office or the designate or deputy of that person.

(c) Without restricting or limiting the rights and privileges of the City to any broader interpretation, any breach or default of or in respect of a term, covenant, warranty, condition or provision of the Agreement, or a liability caused, by any of the Consultant’s Personnel shall constitute a breach or default or liability caused by the Consultant.

(d) A reference to any Act, bylaw, rule, policy or regulation or to a provision thereof shall be deemed to include a reference to any Act, bylaw, rule, policy or regulation or provision enacted in substitution thereof or amendment thereof.

(e) This Agreement shall not be construed as or deemed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third parties, and no third party shall have any right of action arising in any way under this Agreement for any cause whatsoever.

(f) Any services, goods or incidentals not explicitly specified in this Agreement but which are necessary to conform to professional or safety standards or codes governing such Services, or which may be fairly implied as “included”, shall be done or supplied by the Consultant as if such services, goods or incidentals had been explicitly specified.

(g) Any words and abbreviations, which have well-known professional, technical or trade meanings, are used in this Agreement in accordance with such recognized meanings, unless expressly provided otherwise.

(h) All amounts are expressed in Canadian dollars and are to be payable in Canadian dollars and all references to time shall be deemed to be references to current time in the City.

(4) Priority of Documents

In the event of any conflict or disagreement between the various documents or any omissions contained in the documents making up this Agreement, the documents shall govern in the following order of precedence:

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 4

(a) A written amendment to this Agreement in accordance with the terms hereof, the amendment bearing the later date having priority (if any);

(b) This Agreement including Schedules “A” and “B”;

(c) Addenda, the addendum bearing the later date having priority (if any);

(d) RFP;

(e) Statutory Declaration by the Consultant (Schedule “SD-Final”);

(f) Clarification Letter(s) of the Consultant (if any), the Clarification Letter bearing the later date having priority; and

(g) Consultant’s Proposal (including the Technical Proposal and Cost of Services Proposal).

The foregoing documents are incorporated into and form part of this Agreement, even if said documents are not physically attached hereto. The Consultant acknowledges receipt of all such documents.

2. PERFORMANCE

(1) The Consultant agrees and covenants, and represents and warrants, to the City and acknowledges that the City is relying on such representations, warranties and covenants in entering into this Agreement, as follows:

(a) to supply and perform the Services, more particularly set forth in Schedule "A" attached hereto, and undertake, perform and complete its undertakings and obligations provided for in this Agreement to the satisfaction of the Division Head in accordance with all the terms and conditions of this Agreement;

(b) to supply and provide, at its sole cost, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, all necessary equipment, goods, materials, analysis, transportation, accommodation, labour, personnel, technical assistance and incidentals required in performing or supplying the Services, and all overhead expenses in connection therewith;

(c) to supply, perform and provide the Services in a careful, professional, skilful, diligent, timely and workmanlike manner according to the industry standards of practice, care, skill and diligence to be expected of professionals and contractors in the performance of services similar to those called for under this Agreement including the use of materials and methods as are properly suited to the function and performance intended;

(d) to make available and employ for the purposes of this Agreement only such persons as are professionally qualified, careful, skilled and experienced in the duties required of them to perform the Services properly and in a competent and professional manner and ensure that every such person is properly and thoroughly trained and instructed;

(e) to ensure that its Personnel, when using any buildings, premises, equipment, hardware or software owned, leased or licensed by the City shall comply with all security policies, regulations or directives relating to those buildings, premises, equipment, hardware or software of which the Consultant has received oral or written notice;

(f) to use, in the performance of the Services, those Personnel specifically named in its Proposal and to not add to or substitute any such Personnel or engage any other subcontractor without the prior written approval of the Division Head. The City reserves the right to require the Consultant to immediately replace any of its Personnel supplying or performing the Services, upon written notice by the Division Head, where such person in the reasonable opinion of the Division Head has performed unsatisfactorily or breached an obligation of the Consultant under this Agreement or has otherwise acted improperly. The City shall not pay any fee or compensation whatsoever in respect of the time required by the replacement for any such Personnel to gain familiarity with the Project.

(g) to be solely responsible for the payment of all its Personnel employed or engaged for the purpose of assisting in or undertaking any of its obligations under this Agreement;

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 5

(h) to adhere to the Project time schedule and any amendments thereto approved in writing by the Division Head; and

(i) to comply with and conform to all statutes, laws, by-laws, regulations, requirements, ordinances, notices, rulings, orders, directives and policies (including the City policies referenced in the RFP) of the municipal, provincial and federal governments and any other lawful authority and all court orders, judgments and declarations of a court of competent jurisdiction (collectively referred to as the “Laws”), applicable to the Services to be provided by, and the undertakings and obligations of, the Consultant under this Agreement.

(2) The Consultant represents and warrants that its Personnel and, where applicable, the respective workforce of each are fully qualified to perform the Services and the obligations under this Agreement and hold all requisite licences, rights and other authorizations required by any Laws with respect thereto and all powers, capacities and authorities under its governing legislation. Where required by any Laws, the Personnel shall be duly licensed in performing the Services to the satisfaction of the Division Head.

(3) The Consultant shall ensure that all its Personnel comply with the terms of this Agreement and, in particular without limiting the foregoing, the responsibilities of the Consultant with respect to matters concerning safety, compliance with all Laws and the conduct of the Services.

(4) The Consultant shall co-ordinate the services of all its Personnel in a manner acceptable to the Division Head. The Consultant shall ensure that its Personnel at all times work in a professional, co-operative and collegial manner with City staff and the City’s other consultants. It shall be the Consultant's responsibility to control and check the Services of all of its Personnel and to ascertain that all Services are performed in accordance with this Agreement.

(5) The Consultant, in providing the Services, shall and is deemed to be an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of the City.

(6) No subcontracting of any part of the Services or this Agreement by the Consultant shall relieve the Consultant of any responsibility for the full performance of all of its obligations under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the approval of any of its Personnel by the City, the Consultant shall be fully responsible for every such Personnel’s activities, works, Services and acts or omissions. Without limiting the generality of any other provision of this Agreement, the Consultant shall be solely responsible and liable to the City for all its costs, losses or damages arising from errors or omissions or non-compliance with this Agreement of or by the Consultant’s Personnel or any of them. The Consultant’s responsibility and liability as set out in this Agreement shall survive the termination or expiry of this Agreement.

3. PAYMENT

(1) The City will pay the Consultant for the Services performed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, in the amounts and manner, and at the times, set forth in Schedule "B" Fees and Expenses hereto attached.

(2) The Consultant shall, even if the rate of payment set forth in Schedule "B" hereto attached is based on an hourly, daily or other time-based rate, perform all of the Services notwithstanding that the value of the time spent by the Consultant in performance thereof exceeds the maximum amount specified in the Schedule, on the basis that neither such rate nor any provision of this Agreement shall relieve the Consultant from performing all the Services or all its undertakings and obligations under this Agreement.

(3) The Consultant agrees to keep and maintain accurate and complete records and accounts related to any costs payable by the City under this Agreement. All such records, including timesheets, correspondence, receipts and memoranda pertaining to the Services shall be available for inspection by any authorized employee or agent of the City at all reasonable times for the purpose of auditing the Consultant's costs and the Consultant shall provide every reasonable assistance for that purpose. Such records shall be kept for a period of 12 months after completion of all of the Consultant’s services in respect to the Project or termination of this Agreement, whichever occurs last.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 6

(4) At the request of the Division Head, the Consultant shall submit to the City, when claiming reimbursement of expenses, except where the RFP does not require disbursements to be itemized and claimed on an individual basis, detailed expense sheets, copies of receipts, and/or per diem documentation, invoices, vehicle travel records and all such documents and materials in respect of such expenses.

(5) Upon completion of all Services pursuant to this Agreement, the Consultant shall submit to the Division Head a statutory declaration attached as Schedule SD-FINAL (Final Payment) to this Agreement, completed by a senior professional engineer (or, where professional engineering services are not performed, a senior professional regulated by a professional body in respect to the Services performed), who is a fully authorized representative of the Consultant, detailing the Services, or part thereof, for which payment is being claimed, itemizing all disbursements claimed at the time of such submission and certifying that such Services have been performed and disbursements claimed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The details of the performance of the Services, or part thereof, to be contained in the statutory declaration shall be satisfactory to the Division Head.

(6) At the time of submission of the final statement or within a reasonable time thereafter, the Consultant shall submit to the Division Head the certificate of an auditor duly licensed under the Public Accounting Act, 2004, S.O. 2004 c.8 to the effect that in his/her opinion the charges set forth in such final statement (exclusive of any Services to be paid on a fixed fee basis) are properly chargeable under this Agreement. Audit reports must be in the format prescribed by The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). Reports which are not in accordance with current CICA guidelines will not be accepted. The City reserves the right to conduct an audit of the records of the Consultant at the option of the Division Head. In the event that the Services are scheduled to extend or, while not scheduled to do so, do extend beyond a period of two years, audit reports satisfactory to the Division Head shall be required at the end of the second year of Services and on the last day in each subsequent year in which Services are performed; provided, however, that in the final year of Services, the audit report shall be provided within 60 days of the last day of performance of the Services.

4. CONSTRUCTION ACT

(1) For the purposes of this section, “supply of services”, “improvement” and “holdback” shall have the same meaning, respectively, as defined by the Construction Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30.

(2) Where any part of the Services constitutes a supply of services upon or in respect to an improvement, the City shall retain a holdback as required by the Construction Act from each sum otherwise payable to the Consultant under this Agreement with respect to those Services. The holdback shall be retained, held and released by the City in accordance with the Construction Act. Unless otherwise specified in the RFP or this Agreement, no letter of credit or demand-worded holdback repayment bond will be accepted by the City for the purposes of the Construction Act

5. RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP/CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

(1) Any item, including tangible and intangible property, created, prepared or purchased by the Consultant or any person on its behalf in connection with the Services or this Agreement and charged to the City’s account, including all original written materials, programs, card decks, tapes, disks, listings, books, reports, drawings, maps plans, and all other documents, items, materials and information,

(a) is and shall be deemed and shall remain the sole and absolute property of the City, including all copyright therein and rights of use and reproduction, without the payment of any additional compensation by the City to the Consultant; and

(b) shall be delivered to the Division Head upon completion of the Services or other termination of this Agreement, whichever occurs first, or as otherwise directed by the Division Head.

(2) All proprietary rights in, connected with or arising out of, the ideas, concepts, know-how, techniques, computer data or programming developed by the Consultant or the Consultant’s Personnel, or by the Consultant or the Consultant’s Personnel and the City and its personnel jointly, during the course of this Agreement relating to the Services provided under this Agreement shall be the sole and absolute property of the City and shall be treated as trade secrets to which the City alone is entitled, with the concomitant

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 7

duty of confidentiality and non-disclosure. The Consultant shall obtain all necessary assignments of copyright and waivers of moral rights in all Services and related goods to be delivered to the City in accordance with this Agreement and shall provide satisfactory proof thereof to the Division Head upon request.

(3) The Consultant acknowledges that any item, document or other matter which is the property of the City, or in which the City has proprietary rights, pursuant to subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section and the information contained therein are the property of the City having been developed in confidence for the City for its own and sole use.

(4) Any documents, data or other information obtained from the City or prepared by the Consultant for the City shall be disclosed only to those of the Consultant's employees, agents or subcontractors who have a "need to know" for purposes of assisting the Consultant in the performance of the Services.

(5) The Consultant shall not use, disclose, disseminate or reproduce or in any way making known to third parties or to the public any Confidential Information of the City communicated to or acquired by the Consultant in the course of carrying out the Services, except:

(a) as may be strictly required for the purposes of carrying out the Services, or

(b) as expressly permitted in advance by the City in writing, or

(c) as may be required by law to be disclosed pursuant to a court or tribunal order or other legal compulsion and, if so compelled, the Consultant shall only furnish the portion of the City Confidential Information that it is legally required to furnish. Where the Consultant is required by law to disclose any such documents, data or information, the Consultant shall promptly notify the Division Head upon such legal requirement being imposed to permit the City an opportunity to seek an order or other remedy to prohibit or restrict such disclosure.

(6) The Consultant shall deliver to the Division Head, upon completion of the Services, any computer data or program used by the Consultant in performing the Services and paid for by the City, subject to any third party proprietary rights with respect to any computer data or program used by the Consultant but which was developed by a third party with resources unrelated to this Agreement which may be purchased or licensed directly by the City, at the City’s option.

(7) The Consultant shall return forthwith and without demand all Confidential Information of the City as may be in documentary form or recorded electronically or otherwise upon the termination of its Services.

(8) Any reports or other documentation delivered to the City by the Consultant shall become the property of the City and may be subject to disclosure under the terms of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.56 (the “MFIPPA”). While the City is not responsible for the interpretation of any of the provisions of MFIPPA, if the Consultant believes that any part of the reports or other documentation delivered to the City reveals any trade secret, intellectual property right or any scientific, technical, commercial, financial or other similar information belonging to the Consultant and the Consultant wishes the City to attempt to preserve the confidentiality of the trade secret, intellectual property right or information, the trade secret, intellectual property right or information must be clearly and specifically designated as confidential.

6. INSURANCE

(1) The Consultant agrees to purchase and maintain in force, at its own expense, the policies of insurance and coverages set out in the RFP for the duration of this Agreement, except in the case of professional liability (errors and omissions) insurance which shall be maintained for a period ending no sooner than two (2) years after the termination of this Agreement or the completion of the Project, whichever occurs last. Such insurance shall be in accordance with the requirements of the RFP and be provided by an insurer licensed to carry on the business of an insurer in Ontario and acceptable to the City. The Consultant shall provide the City with certificates of insurance as proof of such coverage, in a form acceptable to the City in accordance with the RFP, originally signed by the insurer or its authorized agent and delivered to the City prior to the execution of this Agreement and the commencement of the Consultant’s Services.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 8

(2) Prior to the execution of this Agreement and the commencement of the Consultant’s Services, the Consultant shall also provide the City with proof of professional liability insurance maintained by any subcontractor engaged by the Consultant in relation to the Services, where such subcontractor is under a professional obligation to maintain the same, in a form and with an insurer acceptable to the City.

(3) The City reserves the right to require the Consultant to purchase additional insurance coverage or alter existing insurance coverage as the City’s Manager of Insurance & Risk Management may reasonably require. The City agrees to pay the reasonable incremental cost to the Consultant of such additional insurance or any increase in existing coverages, where applicable. Provided, however, the City’s obligation to pay any incremental cost shall not include any costs attributable to risk factors unrelated to the increase of coverage requested by the City, including the Consultant’s claims history, or any costs that exceed generally available market prices for such coverages available to consultants providing like services. The Consultant shall obtain the prices for such coverage changes and provide same to the City.

(4) Any premiums due on any insurance policy under this section but not paid by the Consultant may be paid directly to the insurer(s) or broker(s) by the City, which shall be entitled to deduct the amount of same along with its reasonable costs in so doing from any monies otherwise due to the Consultant by the City either under this Agreement or otherwise.

(5) To ensure there is no gap in coverage, the Consultant shall provide original signed Certificates evidencing renewals or replacements to the City prior to the expiration date of the original policies, without notice or request by the City.

(6) The Consultant agrees that insurance policies may be subject to reasonable deductible amounts, which deductible amounts shall be borne by the Consultant. The certificates of insurance must include details of the insurance coverage, exclusions, deductibles and any conditions of coverage.

(7) The Consultant shall bear all costs, expenses, losses and damages of its own and those of the City which may arise as a result of the Consultant failing to or delaying in promptly complying with this section.

7. WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE ACT

The Consultant shall be in good standing with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) throughout the term of this agreement. If requested by the Division Head or his/her designate, the Consultant shall produce certificates issued by the WSIB to the effect that they have paid in full their assessment based on a true statement of the amount of payrolls. If the Consultant is considered by WSIB to be an independent operator without coverage, the Consultant shall provide a letter to that effect from the WSIB.

8. INDEMNITIES

(1) The Consultant shall indemnify and save harmless the Indemnitees from and against any and all Claims resulting from:

(a) any breach, violation or non-performance by or on behalf of the Consultant of any covenant, obligation or agreement of the Consultant contained in this Agreement, including any express or implied warranty;

(b) any negligent acts, errors or omissions or wilful misconduct by or on behalf of the Consultant relating to the Services to be provided under this Agreement;

(c) any acts performed by or on behalf of the Consultant beyond the authority of the Consultant hereby conferred, whether negligent or otherwise;

(d) any inaccuracy in or breach of any of the representations or warranties of the Consultant contained in this Agreement;

(e) any preserved or perfected lien under the Construction Act filed or made on account of the Services performed under this Agreement, provided that such liens are not the direct result of the default in payment by the City to the Consultant of amounts properly due under this Agreement. The Consultant shall cause any such lien or claim which may be filed or made to be released, vacated or otherwise discharged within 5 days of obtaining notice of the lien or claim or from receipt by the Consultant of

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 9

written notice from the City. If the Consultant fails to release, vacate or discharge any such lien or claim, then the City may, but is not obligated to, obtain a discharge or release of the lien or claim or otherwise deal with the lien or claim, and the Consultant shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable legal fees, incurred by the City in so doing;

(f) any infringement or alleged infringement of any patent, trade secret, service mark, trade name, copyright, official mark, moral right, trademark, industrial design or other proprietary rights conferred by contract, common law, statute or otherwise in respect to the Services or any matter provided to the City or performed by the Consultant, or anyone else for whom at law it is responsible.

(2) The Consultant shall pay all reasonable costs, expenses and legal fees that may be incurred or paid by the Indemnitees in connection with any Claim with respect to a matter for which the Consultant is obligated to indemnify the Indemnitees pursuant to this section, provided that the indemnity obligations of the Consultant under this section shall not extend to loss or damage attributable to the negligence or wilful misconduct of any Indemnitee to the extent that such Indemnitee’s negligence or wilful misconduct caused the loss or damage.

(3) In the event any Claim is asserted in respect to which an Indemnitee is entitled to indemnification under this section, and without prejudice to any other right or remedy the City may have, the City shall be entitled to deduct or withhold a reasonable sum on account of such Claim, including reasonable legal costs, from monies owed or payable by the City to the Consultant under this Agreement pending the final determination or settlement of any such Claim. In the event (i) the Consultant is, becomes, or is deemed to be bankrupt or an insolvent person pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada); (ii) the Consultant makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or (iii) a receiver or interim-receiver is appointed with respect to some or all of the Consultant’s business, assets, or property, then the City shall be entitled, without prejudice to any other right or remedy the City may have, to further deduct or withhold a reasonable sum on account of such Claim, including reasonable legal costs, from any monies owed or payable by the City to the Consultant under the Project or any other agreement or account. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply in the event that such Claim is otherwise fully provided for under any insurance provided by the Consultant to or for the benefit of the City.

(4) This section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.

9. DEFAULT & TERMINATION

(1) The following shall constitute, without limitation, Acts or Events of Default (“Default”) by the Consultant:

(a) where the Consultant fails or neglects to commence the Services within ten (10) Working Days of a formal direction by the Division Head to commence;

(b) where the Consultant fails or neglects to proceed, once commenced, with the provision of Services diligently and at a rate of progress that, in the reasonable opinion of the Division Head, will ensure entire completion of the Services within the time provided for in the Agreement or where the City reasonably determines that the Consultant has abandoned its duties with respect to this Agreement;

(c) where the Consultant fails or neglects to complete the Services within the time limit(s) under this Agreement;

(d) where the Consultant has made any material misrepresentation in respect to this Agreement or any part thereof;

(e) where the Consultant fails to comply with and maintain in good standing any insurance policies and coverages, securities, professional certificates, permits, licences or approvals required by this Agreement or commits any acts or omissions that, in the opinion of the Division Head, jeopardizes or may jeopardize these policies, securities, certificates, permits, licences or approvals;

(f) where the Consultant fails or refuses to correct, rectify or remedy any unsatisfactory or defective Services, when so ordered by the City in writing, or fails to prosecute the Services with the required skill and diligence;

(g) where the Consultant fails to comply with any Law applicable to the Services;

(h) where the Consultant subcontracts the whole or any part of this Agreement or the Services or makes an assignment of this Agreement or the Services thereunder or any part thereof, without the prior written consent of the City;

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 10

(i) where a lien arises with respect to the Services undertaken by the Consultant under the Agreement and remains unpaid by the Consultant after demand to pay therefore, unless vacated or discharged and released by payment into a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise, within Five (5) Working Days of such demand, save and except a valid and proper lien of the Consultant registered against the property affected by the Agreement;

(j) where any of the goods, chattels or effects of the Consultant shall at any time during the Term be seized or taken in execution of attachment; or if a writ of execution shall be issued against the goods, chattels or effects of the Consultant; or if the Consultant shall make any assignment for the benefit of creditors; or if the Consultant shall be adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, commit any act of bankruptcy or insolvency or make any proposal under or take advantage of any of the provisions of any act or statutes whatsoever that may be in force regarding bankrupt or insolvent debtors or debtors who are not able to or do not pay their debts promptly and in full; or if a receiving order or winding up order shall be made against or in respect of the Consultant; or if any actions or proceedings shall be taken to wind up, dissolve or liquidate the Consultant or its assets by, against or in respect of the Consultant; or where a resolution is passed or any other act undertaken for the winding up of the Consultant; or a receiver, manager or trustee is appointed in respect of the business or assets of the Consultant, or any part of thereof, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or under an agreement;

(k) where the Consultant ceases or threatens to cease to carry on its business, or where the Consultant makes or agrees to make a bulk sale of its assets; or defaults in payment of any indebtedness or liability to a chartered bank or other lending institution, whether secured or not; and

(l) where the Consultant fails to comply with or observe or perform, or breaches or violates, any material provision, term, covenant, warranty, condition and/or obligation of the Agreement.

(2) In the event that the Consultant has committed a Default or a Default has occurred, the Division Head may provide written notice (“Default Notice”) to the Consultant to the effect that if the Consultant does not completely remedy the Default to the satisfaction of the Division Head within Five (5) Working Days of delivery of the Default Notice or otherwise expressly granted in writing by the Division Head in his or her absolute discretion, then the Division Head may, in his/her sole discretion, on the behalf of the City: (a) suspend the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant and either perform the Services on

a temporary basis itself or engage another consultant to perform the Services on a temporary basis; (b) terminate the Agreement and/or the Services of the Consultant immediately by giving notice to that

effect to the Consultant; (c) cease all payments to the Consultant, save for the payment of those Services, if any, that have

been furnished by the Consultant to the satisfaction of the Division Head up to the time of such termination and that have not yet been paid by the City (the Consultant shall have no claim of any kind otherwise against the City), subject to any rights or remedies the City may have against the Consultant;

(d) enforce any performance security provided by the Consultant or deduct or set-off from funds retained under such performance security or otherwise held, but such enforcement shall not preclude the City from recovering any further amounts or damages incurred by the City as a result of the Default by the Consultant;

(e) engage another consultant to complete the Project or may itself complete the Project, without further liability to the Consultant,

(f) where the City performs or engages another consultant to perform the Services, either on a temporary basis or otherwise, the City may employ such means as the Division Head may deem necessary or advisable to complete the Services to his/her satisfaction with such changes therein as in the Division Head's opinion are necessary or advisable by reason of the Consultant's Default,

or any combination of the foregoing.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section and without prejudice to or foregoing any other right, privilege or remedy of the City, in the event that any emergency services are necessitated as a result of the Default of the Consultant, such services may be undertaken immediately, without notice, by the City and all reasonable costs incurred by the City arising from such emergency or as a result of such emergency services shall be borne by the Consultant and payable forthwith upon written demand by the City, with particulars of the emergency and services necessitated thereby, and the City shall have no liability to the Consultant for any loss or damage or compensation whatsoever resulting from such action by the City.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 11

(4) In addition to the rights and remedies in subsection (2) and (3) of this section, if the City terminates the Consultant’s Services in whole or part, as a result of a Default by the Consultant, the City may but is not obliged to: (a) take possession of and utilize any items, goods, material and equipment of the Consultant devoted

to that part of the Services terminated, within the Project site, which is intended to be utilized in the Services, subject to the secured rights of third parties;

(b) withhold further payments to the Consultant with respect to the Services or the portion of the Services withdrawn from the Consultant until the Services or portion thereof withdrawn are completed to the satisfaction of the Division Head;

(c) charge the Consultant the additional cost over the Consultant’s Proposal price for completing the Services or portion thereof withdrawn from the Consultant;

(d) charge the Consultant a reasonable allowance, as determined by the Division Head, to cover correction to the Services performed by the Consultant that may be required;

(e) charge the Consultant for any costs and damages the City may have sustained as a result of the Default; and

(f) charge the Consultant the amount by which the cost of corrections to the Services exceeds the allowance provided for such corrections,

or any combination of the foregoing.

(5) The Consultant's obligation under this Agreement as to quality, correction and warranty of the Services, performed prior to the time of termination of this Agreement or termination of the Consultant's right to continue with the Services in whole or in part, shall continue to be in force after such termination.

(6) In addition to the foregoing rights of the City, the Division Head may, at his or her sole option and upon providing not less than ten (10) Working Days’ prior written notice to the Consultant, elect to suspend the Services for up to ninety (90) calendar days or discontinue the Services and terminate this Agreement for any reason. In such an event, the Consultant shall have no claim, including for any loss or damages, against the City except for payment for such of the Services as have been satisfactorily performed by the Consultant to the satisfaction of the Division Head to the date of notice of the suspension or discontinuance of Services, subject to any rights or remedies the City may have against the Consultant. The Consultant shall immediately suspend or discontinue the Services, as the case may be, on the date and to the extent specified in the notice and place no further orders for materials or services for the terminated portion of the Services. In the event of a discontinuance of Services, termination shall become effective on such date as shall be stated in the City's notice.

(7) The rights and remedies provided in this section given to the City are distinct, separate and cumulative, may be exercised at any time and from time to time independently or in combination, are in addition to all other legal, equitable or statutory rights, privileges and remedies to which the City is otherwise entitled, as well as any other rights and remedies stipulated in this Agreement, and the exercising or taking of any one right or remedy shall not preclude the exercising or taking of any other rights or remedies.

10. NON-WAIVER

No condoning, excusing or overlooking by the City or any of its representatives of any Default by the Consultant at any time or times in respect of any provision contained in this Agreement shall operate as a waiver of the City's rights under this Agreement in respect of any continuing or subsequent Default or so as to defeat or affect in any way the rights of the City under this Agreement in respect of any such continuing or subsequent Default. No waiver shall be inferred from or implied by anything done or omitted by the City or any of its representatives and no waiver of any rights of the City shall be effective unless expressly provided in writing by an authorized representative of the City.

11. SET-OFF

In addition to any other remedies the City may have under this Agreement, the City shall have the right to set-off, withhold, retain or deduct from amounts due or owing by the City to the Consultant under the Project an amount sufficient to cover any monetary Claims or other amount due or owing from time to time, or portions thereof, by the Consultant to the City, including any amount owing to the City pursuant to the Consultant’s indemnification of the City under this Agreement.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 12

12. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY (1) The Consultant shall comply with all federal, provincial or municipal occupational health and safety

legislative requirements, including, and without limitation, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O., 1990 c.0.1 and all regulations thereunder, as amended from time to time (collectively the "OHSA").

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as making the City the "employer" (as defined in the OHSA) of any workers employed or engaged by the Consultant for the Services, either instead of or jointly with the Consultant.

(3) The Consultant agrees that it will ensure that all subcontractors engaged by it are qualified to perform

the Services and that the employees of subcontractors are trained in the health and safety hazards expected to be encountered in the Services.

(4) The Consultant acknowledges and represents that:

(a) The workers employed to carry out the Services have been provided with training in the hazards of the Services to be performed and possess the knowledge and skills to allow them to work safely;

(b) The Consultant has provided, and will provide during the course of this agreement, all

necessary personal protective equipment for the protection of workers;

(c) The Consultant’s supervisory employees are competent, as defined in the OHSA, and will carry out their duties in a diligent and responsible manner with due consideration for the health and safety of workers;

(d) The Consultant has in place an occupational health and safety policy in accordance with the

OHSA; and

(e) The Consultant has a process in place to ensure that health and safety issues are identified and addressed and a process in place for reporting work-related injuries and illnesses.

(5) The Consultant shall provide, at the request of the Division Head or his/her designate, the following

as proof of the representations made in subsections 4(a) and 4(d) of this section:

(a) documentation regarding the training programs provided or to be provided during the Services (i.e. types of training, frequency of training and re-training); and

(b) the occupational health and safety policy.

(6) The Consultant shall immediately advise the Division Head or his/her designate in the event of any of

the following:

(a) A critical injury that arises out of Services that is the subject of this agreement; (b) An order(s) is issued to the Consultant by the Ministry of Labour arising out of the Services

that is the subject of this agreement; (c) A charge is laid or a conviction is entered arising out of the Services that is the subject of this

agreement, including but not limited to a charge or conviction under the OHSA, the Criminal Code, R.S.C 1985, c. C-46, as amended and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched. A, as amended.

(7) The Consultant shall be responsible for any delay in the progress of the Services as a result of any

violation or alleged violation of any federal, provincial or municipal health and safety requirement by

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 13

the Consultant, it being understood that no such delay shall be a force majeure or uncontrollable circumstance for the purposes of extending the time for performance of the Services or entitling the Consultant to additional compensation, and the Consultant shall take all necessary steps to avoid delay in the final completion of the Services without additional cost to the City.

(8) The parties acknowledge and agree that employees of the City, including senior officers, have no authority to direct, and will not direct, how employees, workers or other persons employed or engaged by the Consultant do work or perform a task that is the subject of this agreement.

(9) The Consultant:

(a) must, immediately upon the execution of this Agreement and prior to commencement of the Services, forward to the Division Head a copy of the Safety Data Sheets (the “SDS”) for each hazardous material (as defined in the OHSA) to be used in the performance of the Services;

(b) shall not bring onto the work site any hazardous material, as defined in the OHSA, without first obtaining the prior written authorization of the Division Head and maintaining at the Project site a copy of the relevant SDS readily accessible to all workers, Consultant’s Personnel and City personnel;

(c) shall not remove or interfere with any "designated substance" as defined by the OHSA, except in full compliance with the OHSA and after notifying the Division Head; and

(d) shall, following discovery that any designated substance has been removed or interfered with other than in compliance with subsection (c) of this section, forthwith report same to the Division Head and ensure that no further non-compliant removal or interference occurs.

13. SCHEDULES

The following Schedules attached to this Agreement shall constitute an integral part of this Agreement and all expressions defined in this Agreement shall have the same meanings in such Schedules, unless expressly provided otherwise in such Schedules:

Schedule "A": Professional Consulting Services Schedule "B": Fees and Expenses Schedule “SD-FINAL”: Statutory Declaration Schedule “C”: Consultant’s Cost of Services Proposal Schedule “D”: Clarification Letter(s) of the Consultant (if any)

The RFP, the Addenda (where applicable) and the Consultant’s Proposal are incorporated by reference into this Agreement as if they were set out in this Agreement in their entirety and form part of this Agreement, even if said documents are not physically attached hereto. The Consultant acknowledges receipt of such documents.

14. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS

(1) This Agreement and all terms, covenants, conditions and provisions herein shall be binding upon and shall enure to the benefit of the City and the Consultant and their respective permitted assigns, successors and legal representatives.

(2) Except as expressly permitted in this Agreement, the Consultant shall not:

(a) assign, transfer or encumber in any manner or part this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City; or

(b) subcontract any Services under this Agreement or any part thereof to a third party or change any approved subcontractor without the prior written consent of the Division Head.

(3) No assignment or subcontracting shall, in any circumstances, relieve the Consultant of its responsibilities, obligations and liabilities under this Agreement.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 14

15. AGREEMENT IN WRITING

No verbal arrangement or agreement relating to the Services will be of any force or effect unless it is in writing and signed by duly authorized representative(s) of the City. The City shall not be bound by any oral communication or representation whatsoever, including but not limited to any instruction, amendment or clarification of this Agreement or any of the documents comprising this Agreement, or any representation, information, advice, inference or suggestion, from any person (including but not limited to an elected official, employee, agent, independent consultant or any other person acting on the behalf of or at the direction of the City or other representative of the City) concerning this Agreement, any of the documents comprising this Agreement, or any other matter concerning this Agreement. Where in this Agreement a reference is made to the express written agreement, approval or consent of the City or the Division Head, it shall be understood that the City or Division Head shall not be deemed or construed to have agreed to any stipulation, specification, exclusion, limitation or other term or condition that deviates from a provision set out in this Agreement, unless that deviation is expressly confirmed in a written and express amendment to this Agreement.

No officer, employee, representative or agent of the City is authorized to orally alter any portion of this Agreement. The City shall not be bound by any written representation whatsoever concerning this Agreement unless executed by the person designated and authorized in accordance with this Agreement or in accordance with a direction or authorization of City Council. The Consultant releases and waives all claims whatsoever in negligence, in equity or otherwise with respect to any oral or unauthorized representations or communications.

16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

The documents comprising this Agreement are complementary and what is required by any part thereof shall be considered as being required by the whole. This Agreement, as may be amended from time to time by the written agreement of the parties in accordance with the terms herein, contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matters hereof. It is agreed that there is no representation, warranty, collateral contract or condition affecting this Agreement except as expressed in it. No amendment, modification or supplement to this Agreement shall be valid or binding unless set out in writing and executed by the parties hereto.

17. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by, subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada, as applicable to the matters herein. Any action or other legal proceeding arising under or with respect to this Agreement (including any motion or other interlocutory proceeding) shall be brought in a Court or a tribunal, whichever may be applicable, sitting in Toronto, Ontario. In the event that there is no applicable Court or tribunal sitting in Toronto, the proceeding shall be brought in the court (or other forum) of competent jurisdiction nearest to the City of Toronto within the Province of Ontario. The Consultant and the City each irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario in accordance with the foregoing.

18. SURVIVAL

In addition to any obligations set forth in this Agreement that by their nature survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement, those obligations set out in ss. 2(1)(g) and 2(6) [liability for and payment of Consultant’s Personnel], ss. 3(3) [retention of records], s. 5 [Rights of Ownership/Confidential Information], s. 6 [Insurance], ss. 7(2) [Workers’ Compensation Claims], s. 8 [Indemnities], s. 9 [Default/Termination], s. 11 [Set-Off], ss. 12(7) [OHSA indemnity], s. 14 [Successors and Assigns], s. 15 [Agreement in Writing] and s. 17 [Governing Law], s. 22 [Conflict of Interest] or otherwise expressly intended to survive shall continue to bind the Consultant notwithstanding the completion of all or part of the Services and payment therefore in accordance with this Agreement or the termination of this Agreement.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 15

19. SEVERANCE WHERE PROVISION ILLEGAL, ETC.

If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is found to be invalid, unenforceable or void by any court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed severable and all other provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to be separate and independent therefrom and continue in full force and effect unless and until similarly found invalid, void or unenforceable. The remaining provisions of this Agreement and its application to any person or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, but this severance provision shall apply only insofar as the effect of that severance is not to change the fundamental nature of the obligations assumed respectively by the City and Consultant.

20. FURTHER ASSURANCES

The Consultant agrees that it will do all such acts and execute all such further documents, conveyances, deeds, assignments, transfers and the like, and will cause the doing of all such acts and the execution of all such further documents (including waivers of moral rights) as are within its power to cause the doing or execution of, as the City may from time to time reasonably request, in writing, and as may be necessary or desirable to give full effect to this Agreement.

21. NOTICES

Any demand or notice to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be duly and properly made and given if made in writing and delivered to the party for whom it is intended at the address as set out below, either personally, by facsimile or by means of prepaid registered mail addressed to such party as follows:

(1) in the case of the City:

City of Toronto Engineering & Construction Services City Hall, East Tower, 24th Floor, 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 Attention: Michael D'Andrea, M.E.Sc., P.Eng., Chief Engineer and Executive Director

(2) in the case of the Consultant: [ENTER Consultant’s name and address] Attention: [ENTER contact person]

or to such other addresses as one party may from time to time notify the other party in writing, and any demand or notice so made or given shall be deemed to have been duly and properly given and received on the day on which it was personally delivered or, if delivered by facsimile, shall be deemed to be delivered as of the next Business Day following the date of transmission (provided a confirmation of transmission receipt is issued) or, if mailed, then, in the absence of any interruption in postal service in the City of Toronto affecting the delivery or handling thereof, on the day following three (3) full Business Days following the date of mailing.

22. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

(1) The Consultant shall: (a) avoid any Conflict of Interest in the performance of its contractual obligations; (b) disclose to the City without delay any actual or potential Conflict of Interest that arises during the performance of its contractual obligations; and (c) comply with any requirements prescribed by the City to resolve any Conflict of Interest. In addition to all other contractual rights or rights available at law or in equity, the City may immediately terminate the Contract upon giving notice to the Consultant where: (a) the Consultant fails to disclose an actual or potential Conflict of Interest; (b) the Consultant fails to comply with any requirements prescribed by the City to resolve a Conflict of Interest; or (c) the Consultant’s Conflict of Interest cannot be resolved.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 16

(2) The Division Head shall have the right to decide in consultation with the City Solicitor whether such interest constitutes a Conflict of Interest such that the City shall have the right to terminate the services being provided by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement.

(3) The absence of any disclosure of interest under this provision shall be treated as a representation and warranty by the Consultant that no such potential Conflict of Interest exists.

(4) The Consultant shall not hire any current or former officer or employee of the City to perform any services covered by this Agreement, unless approved by the City.

(5) This Article shall survive any termination or expiry of the Contract.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 17

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City and the Consultant have hereunto affixed their respective corporate seals attested to by the hands of their proper officers in that behalf duly authorized.

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) CITY OF TORONTO ) in the presence of: ) ) ) ) ) City Clerk [delete where not required] ) (c/s) ) ) _____________________________ ) Chief Engineer and Executive Director ) Engineering and Construction Services )

) [enter Consultant’s Full Legal Name] ) ) ) ______________________________ ) Name: ) Title: ) (c/s) ) ) ______________________________ ) Name: ) Title: ) ) I/We have authority to bind the Corporation.

Approved As To Form

………………………………………… Confirmed by Division Head:

----------------- Authorized by Minute No. [ENTER #] of the Bid Award Panel on

the ______ day of ______________.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 18

SCHEDULE “A” PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide the Services more particularly described in this Schedule for the Project, ensuring that the project approach, staffing, organization, methodology and schedule are in accordance with the RFP and the Consultant's Proposal. Services:

The Consultant shall provide and undertake the Services for the Project(s) as described in RFP No. 9117-18-7186 and the Consultant’s Proposal, including but not limited to:

Capacity assessment studies Preliminary assessment and flood cluster identification Hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) modelling and assessment Preferred solutions development Stage 1 Archaeological investigations. Cultural heritage impact assessments Assignment scope development and prioritization Cost estimates development, including cost per benefiting property calculations Project Management and Project Meetings Technical Memoranda and Report preparation Accounting Audit

including those Services identified in:

Section 2, and Appendices A.1 to A.7 of the RFP; and the Consultant’s Technical Proposal. For further clarity, Optional Items included in the

Consultant’s Proposal shall not be included in the Services unless identified as a Provisional Item in this Schedule.

and, without limiting the foregoing, those related professional services and responsibilities otherwise detailed in the RFP and this Agreement in the nature of a general or specific responsibility of the Consultant related to the Project.

Provisional Items:

In addition to the foregoing, the Consultant shall provide the following Provisional Items set out in the Consultant’s Proposal, if and when required by the Division Head:

Supply, install and remove flow monitoring equipment Supply, install and remove level monitoring equipment Flow monitoring and level monitoring equipment maintenance, data acquisition and QA/QC Supply, install and remove rain gauges Rain gauge maintenance, data acquisition and QA/QC Paid Duty Police Officer for traffic control including all associate administration and overhead

costs Preliminary Design Services – Linear Works (sewers, watermains, box culverts, road

reconstruction/ resurfacing) Preliminary Design Services - Storage Facilities (storage tanks, wet/dry ponds/wetlands) Preliminary Design Services – Green Infrastructure (e.g., bio-retention in the right-of-way) TM#5 - Rainfall And Flow Monitoring Program Data Review and Analysis Local Calibration During Preliminary Design

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 19

Provisional Cash Allowances:

In addition to the Base Scope Services described above the Consultant shall provide the following services under the provisional cash allowances identified in the RFP and as set out in the Cost of Services Envelope of the Consultant’s Proposal, if and when required by the Division Head:

Additional Site Investigation and Specific Flood Issue Analyses Field Survey and Investigation of FCS Coordination with affected parties (e.g. TTC) during monitoring program implementation 2D Modelling Completing EA requirements (Phase 2) for one Schedule B Assignment Tree Inventory for EA Requirements Environmental Impact Assessment for EA Requirements Completing EA requirements (Phase 3 and Phase 4) for one Schedule C Assignment Data Collection in support of Preliminary Design and Reporting Public Consultation and Stakeholder engagement during Preliminary Design

Throughout the Project, the Consultant shall work collaboratively with the City staff. The Consultant shall ensure that sufficient time and resources are allocated to allow for City’s input into decision-making processes, that the City’s concerns are adequately addressed and that all Services are coordinated with the other active associated projects as required. The Consultant shall provide any Additional Services, if and as may be required by the City, upon the prior written authorization to proceed with such Additional Services from the Division Head. The fees and expenses for any such Additional Services are subject to the approval of the Division Head, in his/her sole discretion, and, if approved, shall be paid under the contingency allowance (where applicable) provided for in Schedule "B" - Fees and Expenses to this Agreement.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 20

SCHEDULE “B”

FEES AND EXPENSES

1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the total fees and disbursements (including overhead and all taxes) for all Services to be provided by the Consultant under this Agreement, including any authorized Provisional Items and Additional Services, shall not exceed a maximum price of $000,000.00 (the “Maximum Agreement Price”).

2. The Consultant’s fees and disbursements are set out in its Cost of Services Proposal attached as Schedule C, as modified by any Clarification Letter(s).

3. An amount of $000,000.00 (inclusive of all fees, disbursements and taxes) is reserved as an allowance for Provisional Items, where authorized by the Division Head.

4. An amount of $000,000.00 (inclusive of all fees, disbursements and taxes) is reserved as a contingency

allowance for Additional Services which may arise during the course of the Project, where authorized by the Division Head.

5. The initial estimated cost of Service deliverables or tasks may be adjusted during the Agreement by

mutual agreement between the City and the Consultant, provided that the total cost of Services under this Agreement is not greater than the Maximum Agreement Price.

6. Provisional Items and Additional Services shall only be provided on an “as and when requested” basis.

The City shall not be responsible for the payment of any Provisional Item or Additional Services unless those services have been authorized and assigned to the Consultant by prior written approval of the Division Head. If and upon being authorized, the Consultant shall proceed forthwith to supply the Provisional Item(s) or Additional Service(s), as the case may be, in accordance with: (i) the provisions of this Agreement; (ii) the terms of such authorization; and (iii) in the case of Provisional Items, the price set out in the Consultant’s Proposal; or in the case of Additional Services, the applicable unit rates or prices or lump sum amount set out in the Consultant’s Proposal or otherwise agreed to in writing by the Consultant and the Division Head, as the case may be.

7. If any Services under this Agreement are included by the Consultant in a progress claim as partially or

fully completed, but are not completed in accordance with this Agreement, the City may withhold from payment the total amount payable, or a part thereof, for those Services until they are completed or corrected to the full satisfaction of the Division Head, and the Division Head shall notify the Consultant in writing of its action and the reason for same.

8. The City shall pay the Consultant on a monthly basis, within forty-five (45) days of the City’s receipt of the

Consultant's invoice properly prepared to show details of the portion of the Services accomplished and the hours expended by the Consultant's Personnel to carry out the Services covered by the said invoice.

9. All or part of the aforementioned amounts are to be paid by the Consultant on a timely basis to any other

firm and/or personnel which assists the Consultant in performing part or all of the Services, and the Consultant shall advise the Division Head when such payments by the Consultant have all occurred. It is agreed and understood that the City will not pay any firm and/or personnel other than the Consultant for the Services and that it is the Consultant's responsibility to pay all the other firms and personnel.

10. The Consultant's fees and disbursements shall be in accordance with the Consultant's Cost of Services

Proposal and shall not exceed the specified Maximum Agreement Price with respect to the Services under this Agreement. Subject to section 5 (Cost of Services) of the RFP, the payment for Services and authorized Additional Services shall be paid in accordance with the following:

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 21

(a) Time of Principals, Senior Officers, Specialists

For time-based services, Personnel specifically identified in the Consultant’s Proposal attached hereto shall be billed at the all-inclusive hourly or per diem flat rates indicated therein or this Schedule “B”, as the case may be; otherwise billing rates for this class of personnel shall be submitted for review and shall be subject to prior approval of the Division Head.

(b) Time of other Staff For time-based services, staff or personnel classifications specifically identified in the Proposal attached hereto shall be billed at the hourly or per diem flat rates indicated therein.

Billing rates for staff or classifications other than those identified in the Proposal shall be submitted for review and shall be subject to prior approval of the Division Head.

(c) Disbursements A lump sum limit for any and all anticipated disbursements required in connection with any part of the Services shall be provided as identified in the RFP.

Payments for disbursements will be pro-rated based on the value of the Services performed during a billable period.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 22

SCHEDULE “SD-FINAL”

STATUTORY DECLARATION BY THE CONSULTANT RE: FINAL PAYMENT

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO ) IN THE MATTER OF ) the consulting agreement entered into ) between the City of Toronto ) and ___________________________________ ) dated ___________________ (the “Agreement”) ) and an Invoice dated ___________________ (the “Invoice”) ) To Wit:

I, ____________________________________ of the ____________________________________ (Name) (City, Town, etc.)

in the ____________________________________ (Regional Municipality, City, etc.)

do solemnly declare that:

1. I am a senior professional engineer employed by ______________________________________ (Consultant’s full legal name)

(the “Consultant”). I have personal knowledge of the facts herein set forth and, as a duly authorized representative of the Consultant, have the authority to certify as follows.

2. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A to this my declaration are true copies of statements of the

Consultant as part of the Invoice addressed to the City of Toronto setting forth in detail the services performed and the disbursements incurred by the Consultant during the period from the ____ day of _________________, 20___ to the ____ day of _________________, 20___, and for which payment is requested. I do hereby certify that such services were performed and such disbursements were properly incurred by the Consultant pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement.

3. The Consultant has completed all Services (as defined in the Agreement) to be performed by the

Consultant. AND I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act. DECLARED before me at the ) ) _________________ of _____________________, ) ) in the Province of Ontario, ) ) this day of _________________, 200___. ) ________________________________ ) ) ) _______________________________ ) A Commissioner, etc.

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 23

SCHEDULE “C”

CONSULTANT’S COST OF SERVICES PROPOSAL

VIEWING C

OPY


v.2018.07.20 24

SCHEDULE “D”

CONSULTANT’S CLARIFICATION LETTER(S)

[REMOVE Schedule “D” where there are no clarifications]

VIEWING C

OPY

Page 1 of 2

Toronto Water - Water Infrastructure Management Metro Hall, 18th Floor 55 John St. Toronto, ON M5V 3C6

Please state briefly the intended use of the data:

Please list data requested:

The following GIS layers with associated applicable attributes to be determined by Toronto Water: Basement Flooding Study Area boundaries Municipal storm, sanitary, and combined sewers (including trunk sewers); Maintenance holes; Catchbasins; Watercourses; Outfalls; Large sewer chambers; Pumps and pump stations; Weirs; Sewer Valves; and Orifices.

1. The following disclaimer applies to the release of data:

While efforts are made to see that the supplied information is accurate and up-to-date, (i) neither The City of Toronto nor any of its employees, officers or servants shall be liable for damages

arising from any errors or inaccuracies therein, nor from any misuse, misinterpretation or misapplication thereof, whether due to the negligence of such employees, officers, servants or otherwise; and

(ii) the said information is made available to the recipient thereof solely on condition that the recipient and all the recipient’s heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns assume full responsibility for any risk associated with the use or misuse thereof and hold harmless The City of Toronto and its employees, officers and servants from all damages of the type described in clause (i) hereof.

2. The following conditions apply to the release of data:

A) Toronto Water (TW) Water Infrastructure Management (WIM) must be acknowledged as the source of data; B) The user will endeavour to bring to the attention of TW WIM any errors detected in this data; C) The user will not market the data to third parties without the explicit written permission of TW WIM; D) The user acknowledges that release of this data by TW WIM does not constitute conveyance of any

rights or ownership of the data to the recipient and; E) In the event the user undergoes a change in either ownership or organization, the authorization will

become null and void.

REQUEST FOR DIGITAL DATA Legal Disclaimer

VIEWING C

OPY

Page 2 of 2

I acknowledge the above disclaimer and agree to the conditions:

SIGNATURE DATE

NAME POSITION

FIRM

Please sign this agreement and return to: Purchasing and Materials Management Purchasing Services – Professional Services Toronto City Hall 18th Floor W., 100 Queen St. W. Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2. Attn: Aimee Yang Phone #: 416- 397-4803

VIEWING C

OPY