PARA TRANSPO TENDER FOR SERVICE DELIVERY

SOUMISSION - SERVICE PARA TRANSPO

ACS2007-PTE-TRA-0004

Alain Mercier, Director, Transit Services introduced the report and the presenters. He acknowledged the members of the evaluation team and the internal bid team, who were present and available to answer questions.

Louise Panneton of P3 Advisors, the Fairness Commissioner for the procurement, gave a presentation to Committee on the Fairness Report. She outlined the structure, mandate and results of the procurement process, concluding that the process was managed in an open, fair and transparent manner and that bidders were treated fairly. A copy of her PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to questions from Councillor Legendre regarding the competition for the last Para Transpo contract, Helen Gault, Manager, Transit Service Planning and Development explained that it was also a managed competition, but it was different. She advised that the last competition was a Request for Proposal (RFP), based on best value, whereas this one is a Request for Tender (RFT), which, after the initial compliance is agreed, the decision is made based on price.

In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Ms. Panneton confirmed that her company was an independent company, unrelated to the City. Dr. Gault confirmed that the City would have had to buy the vehicles, regardless of who had won the Para Transpo service delivery contract.

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, Dr. Gault confirmed that it was a standard practice to have a Fairness Commissioner appointed for such a contract. She noted that Ms. Panneton had been the Fairness Commissioner for the solid waste contract as well. She explained that there was no Fairness Commissioner in 2001, as such a term was not yet widely used; however there was a firm of procurement experts who played the same role.

Councillor Leadman noted that the in-house and evaluation team members confirmed that they had no conflict of interest. She wondered if having an in-house bid team bidding on a City contract was an inherent conflict of interest, and if not, what was the definition of conflict of interest. Ms. Panneton suggested that one way to evaluate a conflict of interest is determining whether the individual participating in the evaluation, or one of his/her family members, has a financial benefit on the outcome. Aside from conflict of interest, there is the issue of bias, namely, can the individual undertake the evaluation in a manner that is consistent for all of the submissions. She outlined the following measures that were undertaken in this procurement, to ensure there was no conflict of interest or bias:

· The evaluation team signed a declaration of no conflict of interest.

· This declaration was then reconfirmed once the evaluation process began.

· The evaluation criteria were established in advance, and were very detailed.

· Team members confirmed before the evaluation that they could conduct it in a non-biased manner.

She noted that, although there was only one bid, they went through the process in the same manner as if there had been multiple bids.

Councillor Leadman noted that there were several requirements that the in-house team uniquely did not have to provide, and wondered if there was some sort of compensation for outside bidders to make up for that advantage. Ms. Panneton noted that it adjusted through the financial evaluation, and taken into consideration by the evaluation team.

Councillor Doucet wondered if they had received any criticism regarding the secrecy of the competition process, considering how much outcry there was about the secrecy of the LRT contract. Ms. Panneton indicated that she had heard no such comments.

Councillor Bloess expressed his puzzlement regarding the fact that there was only one bidder, although there were twelve at the initial meeting. Ms. Panneton clarified that there were 12 representatives at the initial meeting, and some were from the same firm. In addition, during the process, there were commercially confidential meetings at which two bidders participated. She repeated that, from a fairness and process perspective, she saw nothing that was leading to proponents withdrawing. With respect to issues with the project itself, she suggested they would likely be discussed later in the presentation. Councillor Bloess would have preferred to see more bids, and expressed his concern that there was only one. Mr. Mercier advised that he would address that issue further following the staff presentation, which might explain this situation to a certain degree.

Dr. Gault then made the staff presentation on the above report, and the staff recommendations, which were to approve the In-house Bid Team tender submission for Para Transpo Van Service, and to provide the Sedan Service component through an increase in scope of two existing taxi contracts.

The following is an outline of her PowerPoint Presentation, which is on file with the City Clerk:

· History of Para Transpo Service Delivery.

· Current Service – FirstBus, West-Way, and Coventry Connections as suppliers; the number of vehicles – vans, sedans, sedan taxis and accessible taxis; and the number of customer trips per year based on contracted levels.

· Tender for Para Transpo Service.

· Results of Tender.

· Van Purchase.

· Labour Relation Implications.

· Financial Implications.

The Committee then heard from the following delegations:

John McLuckie began his presentation by advising that he had the opportunity to represent Para Transpo Drivers Union ATU Local 279 as legal counsel for almost 7 years, and his firm for more than 20 years. He is very proud of the association that they have with the Para Transpo Drivers, some of whom were present at the meeting. He expressed concern about the staff proposal for how Para Transpo Services are to be delivered. He feels that Para Transpo is being treated as a second-class service, which means the most vulnerable and needy members of the community are being treated as second-class citizens. He noted that for more than 30 years since Para Transpo began with a small bus company called MNO Bus Line, this service has bounced from one contract to another - MNO, Blue Line Taxi, Laidlaw, and FirstBus and now finally to where it should have been from the start as a component side by side the conventional large bus transit system. He stated that the problem over this upheaval is every time the contract changed; there were consequences for labour relations, and consequences for passengers. He expressed concern about the staff proposal to take a significant component of the Para Transpo Service and push it down to taxis. He spoke about the issues with accessible taxis and asked Committee not to consider the staff proposal on the sedan service for the following three reasons:

1. Labour peace – There is a guarantee of no strike / no lock out for the next 20 years in writing, endorsed by the Canada Labour Relations Board.

2. Safety valve - 140,000 trips is a very great deal of service to provide; once the fleet is gone; once the drivers are gone there is no coming back. He suggested to maintain the dual service of having the sedans and the taxis working side by side ensuring that there is always that protection of having a city-run service equal to the main service providing for that security - once the safety valve is gone, it is gone. He also suggested that prudence is not allowing an industry with labour disruption in its recent history to take on the entire responsibility for the service.

3. Profiteering – He noted that taxi plates in this City cost upwards of a $1,000 a week for drivers to rent. Drivers are renting those plates from brokers, from companies, such Coventry Connections; the meter rate that Para Transpo would be paying to those drivers to transport the disabled is in turn being funnelled back to absentee owners. He asked Committee that instead of spending that money to subsidize people, who do not have any direct involvement with passenger care, give that money instead to the City, allow the in-house team to run the sedan service. He also noted that the in-house team drivers for the sedan service represented by ATU provide the highest quality service that this City can bring both in the conventional and parallel system.

In conclusion, for those three reasons - the labour peace, the idea of having a safety and security of an escape valve, and to avoid the profiteering of the license holders, he urged Committee to reconsider bringing the sedan service in house.

In response to questions from Councillor Bloess, Dr. Gault advised that the current sedan service is actually very inexpensive - $2.28 per kilometre and the current taxi service, under the current contract, is $2.55 per kilometre. The calculation is over the 2008-2012 period– the first year is high, $3.81 per kilometre; the second year $3.01; the third year $3.15; fourth year $3.27; and the fifth year $3.45. This was compared with increasing the taxi rate by about 3% a year, assuming it would go up with the cost of living; and overall the differences were about 20% when you look at the hours. She noted that the calculation is approximate and she believes that some of those figures could move a few cents either way, but it is based on the information with the current contracts and the current sedan service.

On the issue of labour peace, Councillor Bloess stated that he was not aware of disruptions to the Para Transpo clientele where the taxi industry were used to supplement the service. In response, Mr. McLuckie pointed out that there is no guarantee because all taxi drivers for both of the Companies – West-Way and Coventry Connections are unionized. They are currently CAW Members with the right to strike and the right to lock out on either side. With respect to disruptions, Mr. McLuckie pointed out that just recently as two years ago, there were various problems with the Capital Taxi Drivers, who were unhappy with the move to new technology being brought about by the new owner of Capital Taxi, Coventry Connections.

Councillor Bloess seems to recall that there were some labour disruptions with Para Transpo Contract with ATU in the past couple of years, and some of which would have been part day; half day; or one day disruptions; work to rule; and issues that have come up, and asked clarification from the delegation. Mr. McLuckie advised that the deal that was signed came about directly after that situation. He elaborated that the deal was reached after the initial round of labour disruption with First Bus, and after the strike of 60+ days at Laidlaw. Subsequent to that, there have been absolutely no labour disruptions since the signing of that agreement.

Donna-Lynn Ahee began her presentation by advising that she was an ATU Local 279 representative on the In-house Bid Team and that the Union fully supports the first recommendation and would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who was on the In-house Bid Team for his or her dedication to develop this bid. She feels it is a good bid that would respect the aspirations of the employees; it is going to provide first class transportation system for the disabled community; and it is conscious of the impact of this service on the taxpayers of the City of Ottawa. She was pleased to see that part of the service being brought in house, which would finally provide the flexibility, only arises within in-house environment, to explore more options to find further efficiencies within the delivery system. However, she would like to direct most of her comments towards the second recommendation, which is to keep the sedan service with the two existing taxi contract instead of bringing it in-house. Speaking on behalf of the Union not the In-house Bid Team, she expressed concern about the cost comparison, which was not done on revenue per kilometre as stated in the RFT. She noted that only the first year, instead of the full five years, is being used to compare the cost of the In-house Bid Contract to the projected costs of the Taxi Service Contract. She also noted in the In-house Bid, the first year included costs, such as start-up cost, which is included in both on our hourly rate and in the total cost rate; it includes the full capital cost of the vehicle cost; and it includes a 2.5% contingency fund just in case things were a little bit off to make sure that the financial implications of this bid are respected. She further noted that, in reality even though a first year cost was provided in the report, it is not a fair comparison of what cost would be for the next five years, and it makes the In-house Bid appear to be higher when there is quite a difference between year one and year two on both the total and the hourly rates.

She believes that there is a problem with the cost of the taxi service, which appears to be lower while it should have been cost out a bit higher than presented within the report. She advised that she looked into and checked both through the RFT process and through Para Transpo Management that the taxis are paid on a full meter rate plus an administration fee. Therefore, the same amount of money being paid for taxi is what Para Transpo is being charged for taxi, plus an additional administration fee. She believes that there is something wrong and questioned the calculation of $50 per hour in the report. She also believes the finances is a real and serious issue that you should be addressed. She also questioned the taxi industry’s ability to cope with a tripling of the volume of Para Transpo Services, and understands there are already problems within the rush hour.

In response to Councillor Legendre’s question on the costs over the five years, Dr. Gault clarified that over the five years, every year the cost of the In-house Sedan Service would be more expensive than the Taxi Service. She noted that over the five years, the sedan service, according to the In-house Bid would cost $22.1 million, and the taxis would cost $18.2 million for the same number of customer trips. She confirmed that for every year, over the five years the cost would be 20% more overall.

In response to Chair Cullen’s question on the sedan service, Dr. Gault clarified that there are contracts, which were signed following a competitive process in 2006 with the two taxi companies and they were signed such that the scope could be expanded. Thus, recommendation 2 to provide the sedan service component through an increase in scope of the two existing taxi contracts, which falls into existing contracts within the scope. She confirmed that all the players involved in this process were aware of that default position as it was clear in the RFT that staff spoke to the two taxi companies that hold the existing contracts, and of course this service would be re-tendered at the end of the contracts and it will be again an open process of competition for those contracts.

In response to Chair Cullen’s question, the Fairness Commissioner advised that this default position in terms of the sedan service was not raised. However, she noted that there were questions on how the calculation was going to be done; the actual based on a kilometre cost by the bidders was the response provided through the procurement process. Therefore, clearly the RFT laid out the fact that whatever submissions were received would be compared to the current taxi cost.

In response to further question from Chair Cullen on the current taxi cost, Dr. Gault explained that staff assumed, for comparison, that taxi cost would increase 3% every year. She advised that the contracts with Coventry Connections and West-Way expire in 2009. She also advised that the prices being paid under these contracts would go up at the same rate as the taxi rate increase and are based on the meter rate plus an administrative fee.

Charles Matthews, Access Now is very pleased to see the Para Transpo van service coming in-house, be under one umbrella, and be a parallel transportation system. He expressed concern about the fare structures, which have gone in different directions, most of the time to the advantage of the City and disadvantage to the disabled. He also expressed concern about paying an extra ticket for Para Transpo before 9 a.m., whereas it is no longer in effect for OC Transpo. He reminded Committee that the sedan service has two parts – the original taxi service, which was strictly for sedan for people, who with disabilities needing not so ambulatory service as others; for instance, a person with certain disability can take a sedan ride; and people with a scooter and wheelchair, of course, would have to take the van service. He spoke in favour of and is looking forward to the Taxi Voucher Program, which he thinks is very important at the 40% discount and which most cities around the world are adopting. He pointed out that scare tactics with the new system has to stop. He noted that, over the course of the last six months to a year, there were lots of complaints from clients in regards to stories they heard – reduced van service, etc. He also noted that in the report being presented, it indicates 82 vans, plus or minus 10, that is anywhere from 72 to 92, whereas in reality there would be 91 vans, which in his opinion is too low. He suggests that the City adapts to new realities and realizes that demand for service is on its way up, and will even accelerate at a faster pace with the aging population. He then talked about accessible taxis for those in wheelchairs and scooters. He concluded his presentation by asking the Committee to do the right thing and to provide the disabled community with a service that it deserves.

Hanif Patni, Coventry Connections introduced himself as the Vice-President and Treasurer of Ottawa Tourism, a member of the Mayor’s Transportation Task Force and the President and the CEO of Coventry, a company that operates eight taxi fleets in five cities, three of which are in Ottawa. He reassured Committee of the present way, which his company operates. He advised that in the City of Ottawa, there are currently approximately 1,066 taxicabs on the road moving on an average day 25,000 people. He believes Para Transpo provides an excellent service that he would not suggest that the taxi industry takes over. However, he asked Committee to recognize that the taxi industry does have drivers willing to provide such service and asked to split it between the Taxi Services and the Para Transpo Services. He noted that Coventry Connections have several taxi fleets, each with its own collective agreement. He spoke on the last taxi disruption, which he believes was caused partly to increasing standards. He feels that this would be good for the City, for the community, and the 2,000 families that depend on their livelihood in the taxi industry. He hopes that asking to share the service with the taxi industry does not convey a negative image that the capitalists are sucking blood out of the system with a great profit. He concluded his presentation by assuring Committee that it is not a question of making great profit but for the welfare of the drivers.

In response to Councillor Bloess’s questions, Mr. Patni advised that he could not provide a labour peace guarantee. However, he asked the Councillor to recognize that the reason Ottawa’s taxi industry went through a tremendous labour unrest was because the City was talking about bringing in new cars, uniforms, and changing the model so that there would be a much higher level of governance. He believes that it has come to a reasonable settlement now where both the companies and the drivers, who are contractors, are living at peace. He stated that the sense he gets is that the industry has never been as calm and working together since those tumultuous years. He pointed out that Para Transpo Service is not given to any taxi driver. He explained that they have a roster of work to be done; and they look for drivers that can do that work on a guaranteed basis. That work comes in on a roster basis early in the morning. People would call Para Transpo at 7 a.m. to cancel out; and Para Transpo adjusts that for them. Essentially each selected driver would provide this service on a continuous basis until that entire roster is completed, and thus far, this system has been running very well.

In response to Councillor Legendre’s question on the cost per kilometre and the cost per hour, Dr. Gault conceded that the $50 per hour as noted in the report was not accurate however referred the Councillor to the calculations she provided Councillor Bloess earlier.

In response to Councillor Wilkinson’s questions, the following responses were provided:

Mr. Patni explained that the roster tries to lump picking up several people when possible. However, it is not always possible and in many cases, they have to pick up a single individual only and drop him off.

Dr. Gault confirmed again that the contracts for sedan service with the two taxi companies expire in 2009 with a possible consideration for extension.

Mr. Patni advised that the administrative fee is to cover for the tremendous amount of administrative work involved in providing the service. He feels that it is fair, and is much lower than what it would cost the City using Para Transpo Fleet.

Mr. Mercier explained that customers call ParaTranspo that provides a schedule to the taxi industry, which is adjusted as required. He noted that Para Transpo requests a significant amount of information from the taxi industry of their customers. The taxi companies also keep a record of the clients. There is a highly evolved record keeping system on each transaction, which enables Para Transpo to evaluate if there were fair accounting and fair service provided to customers. The contract is for the service plus a significant amount of record keeping, statistics and training. Mr. Mercier advised that he was not familiar whether Para Transpo is electronically linked with the taxi industry, but is certainly moving in that direction.

Wayne Watt, President of CUPE Local 5500, representing the Transit Supervisors, the Fleet Supervisors and the new Special Constables for OC Transpo, spoke in support of the ATU’s / In house bid on the Para Transpo Service. He stated that his Union and City Council should be very proud of the very professional fleet of operators, drivers in the Para Transpo system, and very professional mechanics. He believes that in order to provide a guaranteed service to the seniors and handicapped, a reliable service is required. He referred to page 20 of the report where it is stated that ‘some staff will likely be folded in the existing ATU279 bargaining unit (mechanics), and the ATU 1760 (Clerical), the remainder will be non-unionized’. He pointed out that supervision would be an important aspect of this negotiation and he will be asking that supervisors be unionized in his group, which will supply a system that the City can rely on.

In response to Chair Cullen, Mr. Mercier advised that in the bid from the In-house Team, there was an obligation from ATU of their commitment within that bid. He confirmed that following Council’s decision, staff would finalize the organization and any further discussion with any representative groups within the employee community when finalizing the implementation. He also confirmed that there is no specific agreement at this time with any of the bargaining units and ATU 279.

Lyn Hunt, Manager, Labour Relations, Human Rights & EE, added that when the business comes in, staff would have to assess the duties of specific currently non-union people to determine whether or not it is appropriate that they are scoped into the other existing bargaining units; and until the full scope is determined, it is hard to make those jumps right now.

At that point, Councillor Bloess expressed concern and feels that the bid was not complete. In response to the Councillor’s question on costs, Mr. Mercier confirmed that all costs are incorporated within the bid team submission, and that all elements of the organization, the infrastructure necessary to operate, as an inside business, have been contained within the bid and have been evaluated correctly. He pointed out that where there were concerns or questions of omissions, letters were returned back to the In-house Bid Team for confirmation. He clarified that there is no separate contractual arrangement with another representative group or union affiliation other than ATU 279. He noted that there were extensive review by the Evaluation Committee to ensure the organization, the resources, elements, for example, of using systems within the City costs were all fleshed out.

Red Wellington expressed concern about not being able to get on the Accessible Taxi Vans and OC Transpo Buses. Since he can only travel on Para Transpo buses, he asked that everybody needs be treated fairly and the same way.

Dr. Gault, in response to Mr. Wellington’s concern, advised that the recommendation for 91 Para Transpo Vans would address this sort of concerns. She pointed out that the 91 vans being acquired are a bit bigger than the current ones. She also pointed out that Para Transpo flags customers, who really need the vans to ensure that they are provided adequate service.

Richard Szirtes, President of West-Way Taxi, briefed Committee on the Para Transpo Service his company currently provides, and elaborated on the benefits that he believes the taxi industry can provide. He noted that his company has been providing the Sedan Service since 2002 with a dedicated staff and fleet. He states that it is a business within a business with separate dispatcher, staff; and data entry person, which are all distinct and non-related to the taxi portion of his company’s operations. He pointed out that the drivers used only do Para Transpo Service and do not do regular taxi pick-ups during the day; they come in, get their routes, and that is what they are assigned to do. He also pointed out that his company only uses trained qualified drivers, who want to do this work and who have shown commitment to this job. He noted that, since the beginning, his company has had a 95% or better on time pick up, and that is within a 15-minute window, not a half hour window. He feels the provision of the sedan service has been very successful and the City’s clients have been very happy with it. He also feels that, in addition to the service, trained drivers to deal with persons with disabilities, with passenger customer relations are benefits. He believes it is also beneficial to the taxi industry as whole because when drivers are removed from the pool of taxi calls to be doing specifically Para Transpo work, it leaves the remaining cars more business to share amongst them considering the pool of taxis in Ottawa is now be diluted or increased by a 160 more cars. Therefore, he feels that by removing those cars it is spreading the work around. He advised that West-Way’s Fleet is 100% equipped with GPS, which is beneficial again for providing instantaneous response to ETAs to the City and locating vehicles. West-Way Taxis are also able to accommodate immediate add-on or right away calls. He also advised that, in addition to the dedicated fleet, about 75% of his sedan drivers are properly trained, so even though they may not be doing a particular route that day, if there is a call that comes in, they have many cars that are also capable of doing immediate right away pick-up. He noted that customers, who can travel on sedan, do not have to worry about the availability of accessible vehicles because there are many sedans available and ready to provide this service. While he cannot guarantee labour peace, he noted that a clause in their last collective agreement stipulates drivers would endeavour to continue to provide service regardless of what may be going on during negotiation.

In response to Councillor Doucet, Mr. Larkin confirmed that Coventry Connections provide the same service as West-Way Taxi.

John Mazurek, explained that he sometimes takes Para Transpo, but takes OC Transpo more now. He expressed concern about getting busy signals and not being able to get through when phoning Para Transpo, especially in the morning (7:00 a.m.) on weekends. He noted that every weekend Para Transpo only has three people taking calls, and when one is sick, there are only two.

In response to questions from Councillor Bloess, Mr. Mazurek stated that he supports the In-house Team Bid but he feels that more buses are required. He likes the new computer system for the buses but does not like the meter system for the taxi service.

Moved by Councillor Legendre:

That the Transit Committee move In-Camera to discuss this item pursuant to Section 13(1) (d) of the Procedure By-law, “labour relations or employee negotiations”.

CARRIED

After resuming in open session, members proceeded with questions to staff.

Councillor Bloess noted that external bid teams needed to fulfil certain requirements that the in-house team did not, in order to ensure compliance, such as a letter of credit, and letter of commitment. Absent of those requirements, he wondered what assurances the City had that the service would be delivered as per the contract and what consequences there would be for non-compliance.

Dr. Gault explained that, during the procurement process, they asked for a specific letter of undertaking, agreed to by the in-house team and signed by the ATU, to govern the labour relations over the 5 years of the contract. The in-house team has also included in their costs a 2.5% contingency fund. Councillor Bloess wondered what would happen if the in-house bid does not meet the requirements. Dr. Gault noted that there has been a significant amount of analysis and study of the in house bid, which is a bid that comes with the blessing of senior management of the organization. She suggested there was nothing else aside from the above-mentioned 2.5% contingency and letter of understanding.

Councillor Bloess expressed his support for providing the best possible service to the disabled community. He was looking for continuity of service, guaranteed service, which he believes, were in this agreement. He noted that if it were an external bidder, they would be responsible for the costs if something goes awry financially. However, with the internal bidder, the City would be responsible.

Mr. Mercier explained that, in the case of the sedan service, the staff recommendation is to award the contract to the taxi industry. Therefore, the City would benefit from any existing contractual relationship with the Taxi industry. In the case if the van service, the City becomes the supplier, so the City of Ottawa bears all risks, although in its procurement to the in-house team it does specify that there are terms and conditions to be met. In response to further questions from Councillor Bloess, Mr. Mercier further explained that it was the City’s intent to operate that business as a separate entity within the City administration structure, such that they can protect the integrity of the bid team financially and operationally. He confirmed that they would be reporting back to the Committee as normal course of business all activities, including the Para-Transpo portion.

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman regarding why the City moved from Request for Proposal (RFP) to Request for Tender (RFT) for this procurement, Dr. Gault advised that the RFP was less objective and more prone to judgement and opinion. The tender process is based on price alone, once the requirements were met for the compliant bid.

Councillor Leadman noted that there were three bidders in the last process, and only one this time. She asked if there was any attempt made to determine the reason why there was only one bid. Mr. Mercier explained that there were attempts to contact the other firms to understand why they had not submitted a bid, but there was no response. As to whether the City sought out any such weaknesses in the tender process which may have resulted in only one bid, the Fairness Commissioner noted that she and Phil Andrews, the Program Manager of Purchasing had tried to contact the incumbent provider, FirstBus Canada, but both were unable to do so.

Concerning the report, Councillor Leadman asked if the start-up costs outlined in the report, such as for setting up the SAP Payroll System and the new labour agreement, were part of the tender. Dr. Gault confirmed that they were part of the overall 5-year costs, which would be incurred this year as part of the set up and covered by subtracting from the payments for the 5 years. As to whether an outside bidder would have had these same costs, Dr. Gault confirmed that other bidders would have incurred similar start-up costs.

As to what would happen, should there be a default in this contract, Mr. Mercier confirmed that all risks and costs would be borne by the City for the van service.

In response to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, the Fairness Commissioner stated that she had been trying to contact the other bidders since that Monday. Glen Ford, the Manager of Purchasing then advised that one of his staff had contacted the incumbent after the bid closing, and attempted to ascertain the reasons for only one bid, however, did not obtain any reasons. He also noted that this took place several months previous. In terms of how many bidders expressed interest in the contract, Ms. Panneton explained that there were 12 bidder representatives at the initial meeting, representing maybe three or four bidders. Mr. Ford confirmed that those people were not contacted. Councillor Wilkinson expressed her concern that they ended up with a single bidder.

She asked what would be involved in re-bidding the contract. Mr. Mercier explained that the process for re-tendering the contract would involve the following:

· They would have to spend more time with some of the supply community to understand how to organize the documentation.

· The process would require a way to continue provision of the service in the interim until the re-bid happened.

· There would be a substantial amount of negotiation with the current provider in light of having to return to the market for vans.

· The vans are already ordered, so that will move ahead regardless.

· The re-bid would go through the normal bidding process, which would take approximately three months.

· The existing contract has been extended until December 2007.

Councillor Bédard wondered who had approved the Terms of Reference for the tendering process. Dr. Gault explained that they were developed by the evaluation team and were approved by the Deputy City Manager of Public Works & Services, the then project sponsor, Richard Hewitt. Councillor Bédard asked if there would be changes to those terms of reference if they went back out for a re-bid. Dr. Gault expressed her belief that the RFP document is a solid document and did not see what could be changed to entice more bids. Councillor Bédard, although disappointed that there were no more bids, he is satisfied with the outcome noting that the Fairness Commissioner had indicated that everything was carried out properly and that the in-house team unaware of the fact that there were no competing bids during the discussions. He was convinced that the process was fair and feels that re-bidding would result in much the same response. He also noted that in the 2001 RFP, which resulted in an outside bid winning, the City bid was actually lower.

He believes in-house bid was naturally going to be lower in price, because the City does not have to maintain the same kind of profit margins as an outside contractor. He stated this was a fact that needed to be accepted. He then suggested that Committee approve the staff recommendations and look to ensure that the services are provided adequately.

Councillor Thompson advised he too was initially concerned when he discovered there was only one bid. However, having listened to the Fairness Commissioner and staff, he now supports going ahead with the contract.

Councillor Cullen complimented Committee Members for their hard and diligent questions. Despite the unusual situation of having only one bid, he also believes that it was a fair process and complimented the Fairness Commissioner. He also complimented the evaluation team and suggested that the in-house bid was indeed a very valid one. He agreed with Councillors Thompson and Bédard that it was a fair process, a valid bid and that the staff recommendations should be approved so the process can move forward.

The Committee then approved the following report recommendations:

That Transit Committee recommend that Council approve:

1. The tender submission from the In-house Bid Team to provide Para Transpo van service from January 1, 2008 using 91 vans, at a projected cost of $91,921,000 over the five-year contract term; and,

2. That the sedan service component of the Para Transpo program be provided through an increase in the scope of the two existing taxi contracts with West-Way (sedan taxis) and Coventry Connections (accessible taxis), as permitted within the applicable contractual frameworks.

CARRIED