That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee confirm the Regular and/or Confidential Minutes from the following meetings:

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee approve the award of Contract No. 98-848, Surface Repairs on Various Regional Roads to Dibblee Paving & Materials Limited, Nepean, for a total contract provision of $177,984.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council approve the following:

Mr. David Tucker, President, Secure Technologies International Inc., expressed concern with the tender and confusion surrounding the Request for Proposal (RFP) document. Mr. Tucker indicated his company had bid on Federal projects, however, had limited experience with Regional tenders. The speaker reported their bid was actually the low bid, taking into consideration the application of the 10% discount and issues surrounding Canadian content.

Councillor Cantin inquired why the bidder did not offer the 10% discount on the unit prices in Section 1. Mr. Tucker explained it was their understanding that Canadian content was to apply and the discount would be included in that means, however, they discovered just prior to the tender closing time that it was not applied in this manner. He stated there was not sufficient time to correct the tender document, however, decided to include the "Less Canadian Content" figure of 10% in determining the total of Section 1.

J. LeBelle, Finance Commissioner, explained the difficulty arose around the fact that Canadian content was used for evaluation purposes only. The Commissioner acknowledged the confusion expressed by Mr. Tucker, however, referenced issues surrounding the public tender system. He stated the form / bid from Secure Technologies was altered by the bidder and this resulted in confusion and misinterpretation. The Commissioner emphasized staff could not be put in the position to try to determine what the bidder’s intention were.

G. Elliot, Supply Management Services Division, reported the Region had been using the Canadian content statement for approximately sixteen years and that he was very familiar with dealing with inquiries regarding the Canadian content statement and its role in the Region’s tendering process. Mr. Elliot stated he had explained to the bidder that the total cost of the bid was one part of the evaluation and that secondary and separate part of the evaluation was the 10% preference that the Region allowed in reference to the Canadian content. Mr. Elliot commented he could not understand why Secure Technologies transferred their declared Canadian content figure from Page 10 of the Tender to the total cost calculation in the Secure Technologies bid.

In response to a question from Councillor Cantin, Mr. Elliot explained in the case of the remaining bids, the Canadian content did not affect the rankings as they remained consistent when this was applied. He confirmed the Canadian content statements were in order for all remaining bids.

Councillor Meilleur inquired about the definition of Canadian content. Mr. Elliot reviewed the definition as outlined in the tender document. Mr. LeBelle reiterated that Canadian content was that portion of the selling price associated with Canadian work performed to any product and which could include such categories as overhead, warehousing excise taxes (i.e landed cost). He added this permitted a price preference of up to 10% if all other factors concerning the responsiveness of the bid had been addressed and were equal.

G. Cantello, Solicitor, reviewed the legal opinion for the tender document from Secure Technologies. Mr. Cantello pointed out the total price in the bidder’s document used to determine the Canadian content ("total net selling price or actual bid") was in fact $420,800.00 not $378,720.00. Mr. Cantello reiterated the tender document clearly stated the purposes of the Canadian content was for evaluation purposes only.

Mr. LeBelle reviewed the modifications made to the tender document by the bidder, and pointed out the confusion lay in what the bidder intended the total net selling price or actual bid to be. Mr. Cantello stated an interpretation was based on the tender document submitted and staff were restricted to the documents submitted, not information received at a later date. Mr. Cantello noted on occasion it may be necessary to follow up with a company to obtain additional information if there was apparent confusion. Mr. Elliot confirmed he had contacted Secure Technologies to obtain clarification and was informed after the tender had closed that the $42,080.00 was intended as a discount.

Mr. Tucker inquired if the recommended company, Sona Computers Inc., had MERIT/CIRCLE status on the closing date of the tender. Mr. Elliot stated Sona claimed 100% Canadian content and provided information that established they met all MERIT/CIRCLE criteria, although they did not receive official status until mid-August.

In addition, Mr. Elliot pointed out MERIT/CIRCLE status was not a requirement to tender on the project, as it was a status simply recognized by the Region such that firms accredited may claim 100% Canadian content without being asked to provide substantiation for same.

Councillor Hunter referenced pages 1 and 10 of the Form of Tender and inquired why the bidder did not transfer the $378,720.00 figure as being the total net selling price / actual bid, rather than the $420,800.00. Mr. Tucker explained they were told that page 10, Canadian content, was not going to be considered and therefore, put in the 10% discount on page 1 just prior to submitting the documents to capture this 10% discount.

Chair Chiarelli inquired if any of the remaining nine companies expressed similar confusion or concerns. Mr. Elliot confirmed all other bids were responsive to the Tender document and were expressed properly.

Councillor van den Ham acknowledged the confusion and frustration expressed by Secure Technologies, however, supported the staff position for reasons outlined by staff. Councillor Meilleur also expressed her support for the staff recommendation.

Councillor Cantin referenced page 1 of the bidder’s tender document and stated he believed the intention of the bidder was to submit a "Grand Total" of $486,840.00, with the total of Section 1 being $378,720.00.

The Committee then considered the staff recommendation.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee approve the award of Tender 0205-11-T1/98 to Sona Computer Inc., Ottawa, as the supplier of microcomputer systems and components at an estimated total net cost of $552,797, for the period ending June 30, 1999.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council receive this report for information.

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Council receive this report for information.

Councillor Meilleur moved a Motion regarding further applications under the Health Care/ Research Facilities Policy. She referenced the Regional Chair’s Task Force on Health Services and believed this Committee would develop a policy regarding how the limited resources in the fund could best be used to deal with changes to the Region’s health care system. The Councillor inquired if the Health Care Facilities Fund would be replenished.

J. LeBelle, Finance Commissioner, provided a history of the fund; noting it was previously derived from two sources (1) the tax base which ended in 1989 and (2) the hospital component of the development charges. Mr. LeBelle reported that under the new development charge legislation, which would be brought forward in 1999, Council did not have the ability to have a hospital component in the By-law, thereby, no longer providing a continuing source of funds from growth to support health care facilities. The Finance Commissioner indicated the hospital development charges fund had approximately $4.7 million which was not yet committed to other projects, less the Villa Marconi and Hillel Lodge requests.

Councillor Meilleur stated that prior to further applications being reviewed or funds committed, a report or policy should be developed in conjunction with the public consultation by the Regional Chair’s Task Force on Health Services.

Councillor Loney noted the existing policy indicated distribution on a first-come first-serve basis. The Councillor supported the Meilleur Motion, however, did not see the Region replenishing the funds as it was not possible through development charges and he did not support accumulation through the tax levy. Councillor Loney was open to review what the Task Force could recommend, however, cautioned against giving the false hope that the Region would continue to contribute to the capital costs of health care facilities.

Councillor van den Ham inquired about the Region’s legislative responsibility to contribute to capital costs for long term care facilities. Mr. LeBelle did not believe the Region presently had this responsibility. He noted the development charge component did not impose an on-going commitment. However, the Commissioner suggested by having the hospital component in the present By-law, it was understood it provided a source of funds from growth that Council would want to contribute to projects related to hospitals or health care facilities.

In response to an inquiry from Chair Chiarelli regarding pending applications,
G. Armstrong, Homes for the Aged Commissioner, stated there were no current applications in the system, however, a great deal of expenditures and additional applications were anticipated with long term care and hospitals.

Councillor Meilleur stated the Task Force hoped to have a report ready for the end of September. The Committee approved the staff recommendation, as amended and the Meilleur Motion.

Moved by W. Stewart

CARRIED

CARRIED as amended

Councillor Beamish referenced the South Ottawa Collector Sewer and the problems associated with its function three years after installation. The Councillor pointed out it was a $38 million project with approximately $6 million for engineering fees. Councillor Beamish requested a report on the next Committee agenda reviewing the liability issue and emphasized the large expenditure associated with the project’s problems.

M. Sheflin, Environment and Transportation Commissioner, stated a report would be at Committee for the 6 October 98 meeting. He confirmed staff were examining all areas thoroughly, and stated an immediate solution must be carried out, as further delay would increase costs. At the request of the Regional Chair, E. Johnston, Deputy Solicitor, confirmed an interim report would be provided for the 15 Sep 98 meeting.

Councillor Hill inquired how many residents of the Ottawa-Carleton Region rural areas were not connected to the 9-1-1 Emergency number and why they had been led to believe they had this service. The Councillor requested information on what action the Region would take to have those areas connected, and in the meantime, inform the residents of the proper status. Councillor Hill stated she thought the Region had paid Bell Canada to include the exchanges outside the local calling area in the 9-1-1 calling area.

M. Sheflin, Environment and Transportation Commissioner, reported the particular area and incident had been investigated and confirmed the area was included in the 9-1-1 Emergency Service. He stated the incident was the result of a fault in the Bell Canada system which had since been corrected. Mr. Sheflin emphasized they had communicated this problem to Bell Canada and were reassured it would not occur again. He added the Chair of the 9-1-1 Management Board, Mr. Gord Kemp, would also be requesting Bell Canada to check all areas to ensure there were no faults and that all areas where properly connected. Councillor Loney referenced previous problems with Bell Canada and with civic addressing in the rural areas. The Councillor emphasized the need to carefully review this issue with Bell Canada.

Councillor Hume referenced the numerous roads downloaded from the Province to the Regional system. The Councillor stated that contrary to current municipal policy, some lower tier municipalities had decided they would not cover streetlighting costs associated with these roads. He explained the municipal protocol had been that the lower tier municipalities would pay for streetlighting on Regional Roads.

Councillor Hume requested the Environment and Transportation Commissioner to provide a report on the approximate cost to the Region both in terms of direct electricity and maintenance costs, and how the new costs would be determined and accounted for. In addition, Councillor Hume requested whether this change in policy warranted a review of our Road Allowance Policy Region Wide.