1.             Pay and display implementation

 

Mise en place de distributrices de billets pour stationnement

 

 

Committee recommendations

 
That Council approve:

 

1. That staff be directed to proceed with the negotiations with Precise ParkLink Inc. regarding their proposal to implement Pay and Display technology in the City of Ottawa, under the framework of an Ottawa Option; and

 

2. That the Request for Proposals process for the acquisition of Pay and Display machines be suspended.

 

recommandations du comité

 

Que le Conseil approuve :

 

 

1. informer le personnel de poursuivre les négociations avec Precise ParkLink Inc. concernant sa proposition, dans le cadre d’une « Option Ottawa »; et

 

2. suspend le processus de demande de qualification pour l’achat de distributrices de billets pour stationnement.

 

 

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.      Deputy City Manager, Public Works and Services report dated 3 April 2008 (ACS2008-PWS-TRF-0007).

 

2.      Extract of the Draft Minutes 19, Transportation Committee, 16 April 2008 (To be distributed separately prior to Council).

 

 

Report to/Rapport au :

 

Transportation Committee

Comité des transports

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

3 April 2008/le 3 avril 2008

 

Submitted by/Soumis par :

R.G. Hewitt, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint

Public Works and Services/Services et Travaux publics

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Michael J. Flainek, M.Eng., P.Eng,

Director, Traffic and Parking Operations / Directeur, Circulation de stationnement

613-580-2424 x26882, Michael.Flainek@ottawa.ca

 

City Wide/à l’échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2008-PWS-TRF-0007

 

 

SUBJECT:

Pay and display implementation

 

 

OBJET :

Mise en place de distributrices de billets pour stationnement

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Transportation Committee recommend Council approve:

 

1)         That staff be directed to proceed with the negotiations with Precise ParkLink Inc. regarding their proposal to implement Pay and Display technology in the City of Ottawa, under the framework of an Ottawa Option; and

 

2)         That the Request for Proposals process for the acquisition of Pay and Display machines be suspended.

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité des transports recommande au Conseil d’approuver la décision :

 

1)                  d’informer le personnel de poursuivre les négociations avec Precise ParkLink Inc. concernant sa proposition, dans le cadre d’une « Option Ottawa »; et

 

2)                  de suspendre le processus de demande de qualification pour l’achat de distributrices de billets pour stationnement.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

With adoption of the 2008 Operating and Capital Budgets in December 2007, Council passed a motion directing staff to report back on the implementation and financing of Pay and Display machines for On-Street Parking operations.

 

Motion No. 26/53

Moved by Councillor P. Hume

Seconded by Councillor D. Holmes

WHEREAS Council has increased the Strategic Initiatives category of capital for 2008 by $11.1 million;

AND WHEREAS the funding envelope was originally established at $62 million;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Central Area Transit Improvements ($1.6 Million) be funded from gas-tax supported debt;

And that a business case for the $6.5 million Pay and Display machines be brought forward to LRFP Sub-Committee and Council prior to setting the tax rate; and

That the $3 million for the remaining projects be funded from the increased contribution to capital.

 

A subsequent motion directed that a report in respect to the Pay and Display machines be brought forward to the Transportation Committee meeting of 19 March 2007.  Given the complexity of the issues involved, and in particular, the need to ensure a complete understanding and analysis of the Precise ParkLink Inc. proposal, the report was not available for that meeting.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Business Case for Pay and Display On-Street Parking Program

 

In recent years, the City of Ottawa has implemented a limited Pay and Display Parking Program in the Byward Market area and some off-street lots.  Last Fall, the City began a Request for Proposals process (RFP) to short list, and then select, Pay and Display machines for future implementation.

 

Council approved the introduction of a comprehensive Pay and Display Program for on-street parking as part of the 2008 Budget, with revenues based on an August 2008 start to implementation.  This report shows the Business Case, analyzes options for financing the Program and seeks authority to proceed with the recommended approach.

 

This Business Case analysis is based on the replacement of the existing parking meters only (i.e. does not consider new areas), reducing the reported capital cost to $5.2 million.  Table 1 below shows the high-level business case for the Pay and Display system, based on continued operations and maintenance of the equipment by City staff.

 

Table 1 - Impact of Pay and Display, Operated In-House

                                                                                                                                                 

Revenue Increase 1,2                                                                                                 $1,585,000

 

Changes in Cost

    Reduce/Eliminate Parking Operations Costs 4                                                          (145,000)

    New Pay & Display Operating Costs                                                                        315,000

                                                                                                                                     170,000

 

Net Operating Benefit                                                                                                1,415,000

 

    Annual Capital and Finance Costs3                                                                            665,000

 

Annual Net Benefit of Program                                                                                    $750,000

 

Notes:

1.        Revenues are expected to grow by 22% based on implementation of Pay and Display machines. 

2.        The cost of the Pay and Display machines has not been determined.  This analysis assumes all parking meters can be replaced within the $5.2 M budget.

3.        Financing of Pay and Display machines is assumed to be over 10 years at 5% interest.

4.        No change in staffing levels is assumed although preliminary analysis indicates some reduction may be possible, improving the business case further.

 

This analysis suggests an annual net benefit of $750,000, after considering all costs, including the cost of acquiring the machines.

 

Pay and Display Financing Options

 

A number of alternative approaches to financing the purchase of Pay and Display machines were examined:

 

·        Direct capital purchase would require additional sources of capital to be identified in 2008.  The Cash-In-Lieu of Parking Reserve Fund is typically used to fund capital projects associated with parking operations.  As of the beginning of February 2008, funds in this reserve stood at approximately $2.9 million.  This would not be sufficient to cash finance the total cost and the balance would establish a new $2.3 million Budget pressure.  This approach would be inconsistent with the Budget directions because of the impact it would have on the tax rate.

·        Debenture financing could be employed.  Debentures typically require a term of at least 10 years, which is the maximum financing period that should be considered for an investment of this type.  It would provide the lowest available interest cost, given the City’s credit rating.  The terms and conditions of debentures are fairly standardized and restrictive.  The ability to incorporate payment flexibility is limited, so repayment would commence in 2009.

·        Leasing.  All Pay and Display machine vendors have indicated an ability to provide or arrange leases, with various features for the term and payment conditions.  Based on the rates quoted by the vendors and those available to the City directly, there would be no advantage in having the vendor arrange a lease, and in some cases, there would be a higher effective interest rate applied.  A direct City lease would be very similar to a debenture, with similar interest rates (4.5% to 5%) but with a little more flexibility in negotiating particular terms.  Lease payments could be financed from the Cash-In-Lieu of Parking Reserve Fund for the first four years.

 

However, in all three options above, utilization of funds from the Cash-In-Lieu Parking Reserve Fund would eliminate the capacity of the fund to support any other parking-related projects.

 

Unsolicited Proposal from Precise ParkLink Inc.

 

In December 2007, the City Manager received an unsolicited proposal from Precise ParkLink Inc. (“Precise”).  Precise is a private firm with its head office in Toronto and over 200 employees in Canada.  It has 19 years experience as a parking revenue control solutions provider.  It currently has 3,100 solar-powered Pay and Display machines in service in Toronto, where it has a long standing relationship with the Toronto Parking Authority.  It also has machines in service in Winnipeg, Kingston, Vancouver and over 30 other municipalities in Canada.

 

Precise proposal:

 

·        The supply and installation of Pay and Display machines, both on-street and in off-street facilities.

·        Precise would guarantee the City an increase in revenues (the amount to be negotiated) and the cost of the machines would only be recovered from the increase in revenues the machines produce in years six through ten of a ten-year contract, compared to the revenue level without pay and display machines.

·        Precise would provide the back-office systems to manage the machines and lots, and provide an Asset Protection and Renewal Program (APRP) that would provide the parts required for maintenance and any upgrades required to ensure the machines meet evolving industry requirements over the ten year period.

·        Precise would provide on-site maintenance and coin collection services.

 

This approach to financing the purchase of Pay and Display machines appears to promise improved net revenues for the City, particularly over the next five years.  As a result, staff have met with Precise to more clearly identify the terms of their proposal. 


Table 2 below compares the net annual benefits from Pay and Display operated in-house, as shown above, with the benefits that would accrue from an agreement with Precise.

 

 

Table 2 - Impact of Pay and Display, In-House or with Precise

                                                                            In-House                     Precise                                                                                         

                                                                                          Yrs 1 - 5 1                                                                                         

        Precise

Yrs 6 - 10 1

 

 

Revenue Increase                                             $1,585,000              $1,585,000                                                                                         

$1,585,000

 

 

Changes in Cost

 

    Reduce/Eliminate Parking Ops Costs              (145,000)              (1,630,000)

(1,630,000)

    Reduce/Eliminate Allocated Costs2                                                  (115,000)                                                                                         

(115,000)

    New off-Street Operating Costs                                                         540,000                                                                                         

540,000

    New Pay and Display Operating Costs              315,000                1,195,000

1,195,000

                                                                             170,000                   (10,000)

(10,000)

 

 

Net Operating Benefit                                         1,415,000                1,595,000

1,595,000

 

 

    Annual Capital and Finance Costs                      665,000                              0                                                                                         

TBD 3

 

 

Net Benefit of Program                                          750,000                1,595,000

TBD 3

 

 

Notes:

1.        Precise proposal guarantees access to enough machines to provide 100% coverage, and realize all available revenue.

2.        Allocated costs include some support staff in TPO, coin room costs, and reduced Employee Services support 

3.        There are no capital or financing costs with the Precise proposal in the first five years.  In years 6 to 10 of the ten year agreement the financing costs will be a percentage of the revenue increase, until the machines are paid for.  The amount of these payments will be determined in future negotiations with Precise.  If payments by the end of the contract are not sufficient to cover the full cost of the machines, the City will have the option to pay the balance, or return the machines.

 

It is important to note that the above comparison is based upon a number of assumptions and may change as negotiations with Precise are concluded.  An updated comparison will be provided in a subsequent report.

 

The key advantages of the Precise proposal for financing the Pay and Display machine acquisition are:

 

·        It guarantees the City can enjoy the entire increase in revenues resulting from the first five years of Pay and Display operation.

·        Precise takes the risk that the revenue will increase enough to cover the City revenue share plus the cost of equipment in years 6 to 10.

·        It includes no interest for five years on the deferred capital payments.

·        It avoids use of the Cash in Lieu of Parking Reserve Fund for this purpose, leaving it available to expand off-street parking or other programs as required.

Precise Proposal - Other Aspects

 

Given these potential advantages, the other aspects of the Precise proposal were considered.  There are two key aspects:

 

1.      Asset Protection and Renewal Program

 

·        The APRP essentially provides a ten year guarantee on the operation of the machines.  For a fixed price (per machine, per month), Precise would be responsible to provide any replacement parts required (and repair or replace the parts removed) and to improve or upgrade the machines as required to keep them functioning over the ten year period, for example, as new payment processing requirements are established by the financial institutions.  This removes a key uncertainty which could result in significant costs at some point in the future.  Precise would also operate the ‘back office’ which communicates with the Pay and Display machines, monitors their performance, processes credit card payments for approval and deposit, identifies when a machine requires maintenance, and provides reports on system performance and activity levels.  The City does not have a comparable back office at the moment, although it could create one.  Most cities, however, use a back office provided by an equipment supplier.

 

2.      Level 1 Maintenance and Coin Collection

 

·        Precise also proposes to carry out the Level 1 maintenance, which includes on-site machine maintenance and coin collection activities related to the Pay and Display machines for a fixed monthly cost per machine.  The on-site maintenance includes replacing components on the machines as part of preventative or corrective maintenance, dealing with vandalism or malfunctions, and replacing consumables such as the rolls of paper.  The City employees currently performing these functions would be transferred to Precise in accordance with the Collective Agreement.  Precise further expects to use some of the staff for other aspects of their Ottawa parking operations, allowing the savings to occur even though all staff involved would be transferred.

 

Preliminary analysis suggests that annual operating costs could be reduced by $180,000 by adopting the Precise proposal.  Under the proposal, policy issues such as parking rates, hours of operation and determination of which areas would have paid parking would remain the responsibility of the City.  Precise would expect the City to continue enforcing paid parking as it does today.

 

Union Collective Agreement

 

The relevant provisions of the CUPE 503 Collective Agreement will be respected in the process.

 

Summary

 

In summary, the proposal would transfer the following risks to the vendor:

 

·        Risk that incremental revenues will be below the guarantee level negotiated, requiring the vendor to “top up” the revenues;

·        Risk that the incremental revenues in years 6 to 10 will not be sufficient to pay for the machines, and the balance owing in ten years is greater than the realizable value of the machines;

·        Risk that operating costs grow more quickly than contract provisions; and,

·        Risk that deficiencies in the machines or changes in the industry (e.g. new credit card approval requirements, communications protocols) require expensive upgrades or repairs.

 

The City would also have some risks in the arrangement.  As with any contract, a financial failure of the bidder could result in a loss of services which could be difficult to replace quickly.  It would also commit the City to one particular type of Pay and Display machine, and could limit its flexibility to change key program parameters over the contract period.

 

Ottawa Option

 

The Precise proposal was unsolicited, and therefore, considered under the Ottawa Option Policy for Management of Unsolicited Proposals (see Document 1 for the Ottawa Option Policy as approved by Council).  The Precise proposal includes a number of innovative concepts (revenue guarantee, payment deferral and risk sharing related to Capital costs, APRP with essentially a 10 year guarantee, transfer of staff) and therefore, qualifies as an Ottawa Option Proposal.  It also provides the opportunity for an ongoing annual operating cost saving.

 

There is a procurement process already underway for the acquisition of Pay and Display equipment.  An RFP has been issued, a number of firms have responded and some have subsequently been short-listed.  The next stage in this process would have been to define exactly what is required (considering the knowledge gained in the RFP process) and then ask the short-listed firms to provide proposals to meet these requirements, with pricing details.  The Precise proposal includes the equipment sought under the RFP process, but also covers a much wider range of equipment and services, related to both on and off-street parking operations.  It is not, therefore, the same thing as the RFP process; as such, proceedings with the Precise proposal will make the RFP process redundant, thereby necessitating its suspension at this time.

 

Proceeding with the Precise proposal, under the Ottawa Option process would involve:

 

·        Clearly identifying the City’s requirements related to the equipment and services proposed.  This could involve adjusting the scope of the proposal as required to best meet City requirements.

·        Seeking a specific, priced proposal from Precise for all the goods and services required, and ensuring Precise can meet all the requirements established.  This will involve negotiation and discussion. 

·        Assessing the terms offered by Precise and reporting the findings to Council.

·        If approved by Council, inviting competing proposals from other bidders, and giving Precise the opportunity to match any competing proposal that may be considered superior.

·        Reporting the results for Council approval.

 

In addition, the requirements of the Collective Agreement to provide notice and information to the Union and consider any proposal the Union may provide must be met as this process proceeds. 

 

One key challenge will be structuring the proposal in a manner that allows a competition between vendors with the opportunity for Precise to match any superior counter-offers.  The approach to be used will involve:

 

·        Establishing a clear Statement of Requirements (SOR) relating to the capabilities of the Pay and Display machines and to the services to be provided.

·        Identifying the payment framework, based on the Precise proposal.  For example, this would require no payment on the machines and no interest accrued for five years, with payments from years 6 to 10 based upon a percentage of the incremental revenues.  Services would be paid for by monthly payments based on the number of machines in the field.

·        Bidders would then provide the capital cost for each machine, and the amount of the monthly fee to be paid for services related to each machine (and any other services required in the SOR).

·        The capital cost and monthly charges would be calculated based on an assumed number of machines and the net present value determined.

·        The lowest net present value (e.g. lowest cost to the City) would be the best bid.  If the best bid was not the bid provided by Precise, Precise would have the option to match the best bid by reducing the cost of its machines and/or services until the net present value of its bid was at least as low as the best bid.

 

 

CITY STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS

 

The proposed strategy for Pay and Display machines responds to several of the Strategic Priorities approved by Council for the 2007-2010 term. 

 

In particular:

 

·         Deliver agreed level of service at the lowest possible cost: the City will receive a guaranteed, increased revenue stream, while maintaining existing service standards and reducing operating costs;

·         Integrate outcome-based performance measurement into a flexible and evolving delivery model that respects triple bottom line approaches, to respond to community and environmental demands: this strategy brings together financial and environmental advantages for the City, while improving the service experience for parking users;

·         Become a financially sustainable City by 2010: the strategy provides a greater net benefit than if it were financed through the tax rate or a debenture, or operated in-house; and,

·         Become leading edge in community and urban design: Pay and Display machines will result in fewer obstructions on sidewalks, and create a cleaner looking streetscape.

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

There has been extensive public discussion of the Parking Program in general, however, much less on the Pay and Display aspects.  The Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) and other business groups were asked for their input on the implementation process, and the Pay and Display Program has generally been supported by the groups consulted.  There is general consensus on the value and benefits that it will bring, namely:

 

·        increased  number of cars that can park in limited on-street space;

·        fewer obstructions on the sidewalks, and a cleaner looking streetscape;

·        customers have a wider range of payment options including credit cards; and,

·        users will be able to pay for as much or as little time as they require up to the maximum amount of time parking is permitted. 

 

Before implementing the Pay and Display machines on-street, staff will be consulting with affected BIAs and other business groups concerning the specifics of their locations, including where the Pay and Display machines will go, and when they will be installed in each area.

 

This evaluation of financing options and the unsolicited proposal has not been the subject of consultation, however. 

 

 

TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN

 

The implementation of Pay and Display machines will help accomplish the first goal of the Transportation Master Plan related to parking, namely: “To provide short-term parking that supports the vital interests of local businesses, institutions and tourism destinations”.  The Pay and Display Program will help make the best possible use of the limited on-street parking available to support these uses.

 

The Transportation Master Plan also requires the investigation of new technologies for payment of parking charges, and this initiative is a direct outcome of these investigations.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

As directed by Council, the 2008 Draft Budget contained a number of revenue generating options.  One of the options presented by the Traffic and Parking Operations Branch was the replacement of on-street parking meters with Pay and Display machines.  This option also indicated the need for a capital investment to acquire and install these machines. 

 

The 2008 Operating Budget anticipated a mid-August 2008 implementation of the on-street Pay and Display option.  No provision for the cost of acquiring or leasing the equipment was finalized as part of the 2008 Budget Process.  Council directed that a Business Case be developed for the Pay and Display option, along with an examination of the financing alternatives available to the City to acquire the machines. The business case as presented in “Table 1 - Impact of Pay and Display, Operated In-House” reflects a net benefit of $750,000.

 

A number of issues have arisen since the adoption of the 2008 Budget in December 2007 that will impact the timing and realization of the expected net revenues.  A key issue is the unsolicited proposal from Precise to operate components of the Parking Program on behalf of the City.  This proposal would include the supply of Pay and Display machines and would also include operational cost savings in the Parking Program to the City.

 

The Precise proposal, subject to finalization of an agreement and the Ottawa Option process, highlights the potential to generate net additional revenues of approximately $1.595 million per year without a requirement to make capital payments for five years as shown in “Table 2 - Impact of Pay and Display, In-House or with Precise”.  The timeline to complete the necessary steps of the Ottawa Option through to a final agreement, and equipment installation with the successful vendor suggests that implementation will occur in 2009.  The revenue estimate for the year will be included in the 2009 draft budget

 

For years 1-5, the City will be the beneficiary of the additional net revenue, which is projected to be the $1.595M per year.  In years 6-10, the net revenue benefit to the City is to be determined as the specific amount that will be required to pay for the P&D machines is still to be negotiated with Precise.

 

The additional revenue projections as contained in the Precise proposal is consistent with the City’s net revenue projections associated with a $3.00 meter rate.  The original 2008 Budget option had assumed a part-year effect in 2008 with full benefit in 2009.  The current Precise proposal for the Pay and Display machine implementation, combined with utilization of the Ottawa option, delays any revenue realization by approximately one Budget cycle over what was initially projected.

 

Under the Precise proposal, the initial capital cost of acquiring and installing the Pay and Display machines would be borne by Precise.  No payments by the City to Precise for these capital costs would be required in the first five years of a proposed 10-year agreement.  Precise would only receive payments (without any accrued interest) from the City in years 6 to 10 subject to the negotiation of a final agreement as noted above.  These payments would begin in year 6 and end when the original capital costs incurred by Precise are recovered, or at the end of year 10 (whichever comes first).  Once the capital costs are recovered by Precise, the City would assume ownership of these machines.  If, after year 10, the amount paid to Precise from these projected revenue increases has not been sufficient to cover the original capital costs, the City would have the option to pay off any remaining balance or allow Precise to remove the machines and/or seek a new arrangement for the supply and operation of parking machines.

 

Should Council direct staff to proceed with the unsolicited proposal from Precise, a specific, priced proposal from Precise for all goods and services and capital repayment plan as established by the City would be required, along with ensuring that all the requirements associated with implementing and managing the Pay and Display option can be met by the proponent. 

The specific priced proposal would be submitted to Council for consideration and, if approved, would result in requesting competing proposals from other bidders.  Precise would be given the opportunity to match any competing bid that may be considered superior.  The results of this process would be submitted to Council for consideration and approval.

 

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1 – Ottawa Option Policy

 

 

DISPOSITION

 

Staff of both the Traffic and Parking Operations Branch and the Financial Services Branch will carry out the recommended process.

 

Document 1

 

Ottawa Option Policy

(as approved by Council 23 October 2002)

 

 

THE OTTAWA OPTION

 

Unsolicited Proposals

 

The Ottawa Option provides the City of Ottawa with a method for receiving unsolicited bids for projects and then offer others an opportunity to improve and bid on the proposal, while at the same time protecting the ability of the original proponent to match any other competing proposal.

 

Adopting this approach overcomes many problems associated with traditional unsolicited bids.  Typically, it is recommended that local governments should not consider unsolicited bids for a variety of reasons.  For instance, the benefits of P3s are that they take advantage of competition among partners.  Unsolicited proposals cannot be compared to proposals from other potential partners.  Another possible concern with unsolicited bids is the potential for the perception of bias and unfair procurement procedures.

 

The Ottawa Option overcomes these concerns by providing an approach whereby the City of Ottawa can receive unsolicited proposals for a project in a fair and practical manner.  The process is as follows:

 

·        A Private Sector Participant submits an Unsolicited Proposal for a project which is innovative and which was not initiated or is not planned to be initiated by the City of Ottawa.  The submission must include:

i.                     Details of the technical, commercial, managerial and financial capability of the participant;

ii.                   Technical, financial and commercial details of the proposal; and,

iii.                  Draft contract principles for undertaking the project.

·        The Private Sector Participant is advised of the “The Ottawa Option” process that the City follows and is requested to confirm that he/she is prepared to continue to participate in accordance with this process.

·        The City of Ottawa would evaluate the Private Sector Participant’s technical, commercial, managerial and financial capability to determine whether the participant’s capabilities are adequate for undertaking the project.

·        The City of Ottawa would then weigh the technical, commercial, managerial and financial aspects of the Private Sector Participant’s proposal and the Contract Proposal and determine if the scale and scope of the project is in line with the requirements, the funding ability, or the interests of the City.  Also being determined is whether the sharing of risks as proposed in the Contract Proposal is acceptable to the City  and if the project is in conformity with long term objectives.

·        Based on this assessment, the City may decide to reject the proposal, to request amendments to the proposal, or to continue with the process.

·        If the City recommends any modification in the technical, scale, scope and risk sharing of the proposal, the Original Private Sector Participant will be allowed to consider the recommendations and re-submit its proposal within a given time period. 

·        The City of Ottawa will then invite competing counter proposals giving adequate notice.  The proposal and contract principles of the Original Private Sector Participant will be made available to any interested applicants.  (Proprietary information contained in the original proposal would remain confidential and would not be disclosed).

·        The Original Private Sector Participant will be given an opportunity to match any competing counter proposals that may be superior to the Original Proposal.  In the case the Original Private Sector Participant matches or improves on the competing counter proposal, the Project will be awarded to the Original Private Sector Participant.

·        In the event the Original Private Sector Participant does not match or improve on the competing counter proposal, the City can award the project to others, and the Contract Proposal prepared by the Original Private Sector Participant becomes the property of the City of Ottawa.

 

The City of Ottawa will assemble a review committee who will evaluate the proposals.

 

The Ottawa Option provides a framework for effective and fair competition when addressing unsolicited proposals.  It also complements the City of Ottawa’s organizational culture, which advocates dynamic innovation and proactively encourages suggestions from the private sector.