|
1. LANSDOWNE –
RESULTS OF THE RFP PROCESS – EXPOSITION HALL FACILITY LANSDOWNE – RÉSULTATS DU PROCESSUS DE DP – ESPACE
D’EXPOSITION |
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council
1.
Accept the
proposal from Shenkman Corporation, dated 6 May 2010, as meeting the City’s
Request for Proposal process requirements to be considered the preferred
proposal for negotiating an agreement for the design, construction, operation, and financing of an Exposition Hall
facility;
2.
Authorize
the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Shenkman
Corporation for the design,
construction, operation, and financing of an Exposition Hall facility as
outlined in this report; and
3.
Subject to
approval of Recommendation 2 above, authorize the City Manager to negotiate and
enter into a Municipal Capital Facilities Agreement with Shenkman Corporation
for the design, construction,
operation, and financing of an Exposition Hall facility as outlined in this
report.
RecommandationS du ComitÉ
Que Conseil
1.
Accepte la proposition de la Shenkman
Corporation, en date du 6 mai 2010, comme satisfaisant aux exigences du
processus de demande de proposition de la Ville en vue d’être jugée la
proposition privilégiée dans le cadre de la négociation d’une entente
concernant la conception, la construction, l’exploitation et le financement
d’un espace d’exposition;
2.
Autorise le directeur municipal à
négocier et signer une entente avec la Shenkman Corporation en vue de la
conception, de la construction, de l’exploitation et du financement d’un espace
d’exposition, comme il est décrit dans le présent rapport;
3.
Sous réserve de l’approbation de la
Recommandation 2 ci-dessus, autorise le directeur municipal à négocier et à
signer une entente sur les immobilisations municipales avec la Shenkman Corporation
en vue de la conception, de la construction, de l’exploitation et du
financement d’un espace d’exposition, comme il est décrit dans le présent
rapport.
DOCUMENTATION
1. City Manager’s report dated 1 June 2010
(ACS2010-CMR-REP-0033).
2. Extract
of Draft Minute, 1 June 2010 can be found at the end of item 2 - Exposition Hall Facility - Economic and
Social Benefit.
Report to/Rapport au:
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique
and Council / et au Conseil
1 June 2010 / le 1 juin 2010
Submitted by/Soumis par: Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager /
Directeur municipal
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Gordon MacNair, Director, Real Estate Partnerships and Development
Office/Directeur, Partenariats et Développement en immobilier
(613)
580-2424 x 21217, Gordon.MacNair@Ottawa.ca
|
Ref N°: ACS2010-CMR-REP-0033 |
SUBJECT:
|
LANSDOWNE – RESULTS OF THE RFP PROCESS – EXPOSITION HALL
FACILITY |
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
LANSDOWNE
– RÉSULTATS DU PROCESSUS DE DP – ESPACE D’EXPOSITION |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That
the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee receive this report
for information and refer it to the Special Council Meeting for the Lansdowne
Partnership Plan and Implementation and Related Reports for Council
consideration of the following recommendations:
That Council:
1. Accept the proposal from Shenkman
Corporation, dated 6 May 2010, as meeting the City’s Request for Proposal
process requirements to be considered the preferred proposal for negotiating an
agreement for the design, construction,
operation, and financing of an Exposition Hall facility;
2.
Authorize
the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Shenkman
Corporation for the design,
construction, operation, and financing of an Exposition Hall facility as
outlined in this report; and
3.
Subject to
approval of Recommendation 2 above, authorize the City Manager to negotiate and
enter into a Municipal Capital Facilities Agreement with Shenkman Corporation
for the design, construction,
operation, and financing of an Exposition Hall facility as outlined in this
report.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité des
services organisationnels et du développement économique prenne connaissance du
présent rapport à titre informatif et le transmette au Conseil à la réunion
extraordinaire où il étudiera le Plan de partenariat et de mise en œuvre du
parc Lansdowne et les rapports pertinents à ce sujet aux fins d’examen des
recommandations suivantes :
Que le Conseil :
1.
Accepte la proposition de la Shenkman
Corporation, en date du 6 mai 2010, comme satisfaisant aux exigences du
processus de demande de proposition de la Ville en vue d’être jugée la
proposition privilégiée dans le cadre de la négociation d’une entente
concernant la conception, la construction, l’exploitation et le financement
d’un espace d’exposition;
2.
Autorise le directeur municipal à
négocier et signer une entente avec la Shenkman Corporation en vue de la
conception, de la construction, de l’exploitation et du financement d’un espace
d’exposition, comme il est décrit dans le présent rapport;
3.
Sous réserve de l’approbation de la
Recommandation 2 ci-dessus, autorise le directeur municipal à négocier et à
signer une entente sur les immobilisations municipales avec la Shenkman
Corporation en vue de la conception, de la construction, de l’exploitation et
du financement d’un espace d’exposition, comme il est décrit dans le présent
rapport.
BACKGROUND
On 16 November 2009, Council considered a report from the City Manager (Ref #: ACS2009-CMR-OCM-0009) regarding the Lansdowne Partnership Plan (LPP) Implementation which included a Recommendation #2a) iv) that The Shenkman Corporation be directed to submit a formal proposal to the City for the construction and operation of a Trade and Consumer Show facility at the Ottawa Airport prior to 15 February 2010.
In consideration of Recommendation 2a) iv), Council approved Motion No. 77/21 as follows:
“That staff be directed to commence the Request for Expressions of
Interest to the proposal process for the construction, operation and finance of
a Trade and Consumer Show facility in Ottawa as soon as possible and that any
proposal from the Shenkman Corporation be received through the RFEOI process
and that a Request for Proposals process be immediately commenced upon the
successful completion of the RFEOI process, to be completed prior to Council’s
June 2010 consideration; and that Recommendation 2 a) iv) of the LPP
Implementation Report be modified to reflect this revision; and that Council
direct staff to commission a study to assess the following:
1) Social value to community residents of a new
trade and consumer show facility;
2) Indirect economic benefits and value to local
business to promote and grow their business;
3) Direct economic benefits to the community and
broader region from visitor spending by (new money to the community,
jobs/employment);
4) Development spin-off potential (e.g. hotels
and other facilities, improved airport services);
5) Review municipal investments practices in
Trade and Consumer Show facilities;
6) Other Benefits. “
Request
for Proposals - Exposition Hall Facility
On 10
February 2010, Council considered a report prepared by the Real Estate
Partnerships and Development Office (Ref. # ACS2010-CMR-REP-0009) dealing with
the first part of Motion 77/21. Council approved resulting recommendations
from the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee (CSEDC) that
staff proceed directly to a Request For Proposals (RFP) process for the design,
construction, operation and financing of an Exposition Hall facility in Ottawa
based on the facility specifications, evaluation criteria, and evaluation team
for the RFP set out in Document 9 attached to this report and utilizing a
Fairness Commissioner to oversee the RFP process. The CSEDC recommendations
also included direction that staff seek upper tier funding for the
development of future trade show space in Ottawa.
Council further
directed that if the City is involved in financing the
construction of the trade show facility, there be a LEED Silver requirement
(Motion 84/2) and that the levels of service criteria for transit and road access be
clarified and the importance of the relative distance to
The Council-approved objectives, as set out in Document 9 of this report, are as follows:
·
“To
enhance the public Exposition Hall facilities in Ottawa by replacing the three
existing facilities at Lansdowne Park with a single public Exposition Hall
facility at another location in the City;”
·
“To ensure
the new public Exposition Hall facility meets the use requirements of the trade
and consumer show industry, as well as community and charitable organizations,
by having an exhibit hall space with a minimum area of 150,000 sq. ft. together
with adequate support facilities in a building annex of approximately 70,000
sq. ft., with convenient parking and vehicular access, and public transit
availability;”
·
“To enter
into an agreement with a private sector partner with the necessary capabilities
to design, finance, and construct the new public Exposition Hall facility and
to operate and maintain it for a period
of at least 30 years;”
·
“To
minimize the City’s financial contribution in providing a new public Exposition
Hall facility; and”
·
“To have
the new public Exposition Hall facility open for use by 1 September 2011, if
possible, and no later than 1 March 2012.”
The
RFP document was then prepared on the basis of the Council approvals and
directions given on 10 February 2010. The RFP was then issued on 2 March 2010 and closed on 6 May 2010 in
accordance with the RFP document and addenda attached as Document 8 to this
report.
The RFP document clearly stated that “This Request for Proposal (“RFP”) will not
result in a final contract or agreement for the development of the Exposition
Hall Facility. Rather, the process is intended to identify a Preferred
Proponent with whom the City could negotiate if it decides, in its sole and absolute
discretion, to proceed with the creation of the Exhibition Hall Facility. The
final decision will be contingent, at least in part, on the redevelopment of
Lansdowne Park.”
Exposition Hall Facility - Economic
and Social Benefits Report
As directed under the second
part of Motion 77/21, the
Economic Development Branch initiated a study undertaken by HLT Advisory Inc.
to assess the economic and social benefits of an Exposition Hall Facility. The resulting
HLT Advisory Inc. report “New Trade and Consumer Show Facilities in
Ottawa” is the subject of a separate
staff report “Exposition Hall Facility - Economic and Social Benefits”
(ACS2010-ICS-CSS-0005) that is being forwarded for information to Council when
considering the results of the RFP process for an Exposition Hall Facility.
DISCUSSION
1.
RFP Process Results
As
set out in the “Summary of Procurement Process” prepared by the Supply Branch
and attached to this report as Document 6, there was significant interest in
the RFP for the Exposition Hall Facility from service providers with 39
companies downloading the Request for Proposal (RFP) document.
Three
of these companies subsequently met with City officials in “commercially confidential”
meetings. The purpose of these meetings was to anchor key elements of the RFP
and provide an opportunity for proponents to ask any questions that they may
have related to the process, or the information contained in the RFP.
In
order to ensure an independent level of scrutiny, Peter Woods, of The Public
Sector Company Ltd. was appointed as Fairness Commissioner and any questions
and answers provided at these meetings, that were considered by the Fairness
Commissioner to be of a general nature, were issued as addenda. Questions and
answers viewed as proprietary were only shared with the Proponent requesting
the information.
The RFP closed at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, 6 May 2010. A single submission was received from Shenkman Corporation. On 11 May 2010, the Evaluation Team evaluated the Shenkman Corporation submission in accordance with the stated project objectives and Council-approved priorities, based solely on the written content and the evaluation criteria stipulated in the RFP document. The Fairness Commissioner scrutinized the evaluation process to ensure that it followed the process stipulated in the RFP document.
It was the consensus of the Evaluation Team that the proposal submitted by the Shenkman Corporation (Shenkman) met all the mandatory requirements of the RFP and well exceeded the minimum score of 75% (75 points out of 100 points) on the technical proposal requirements. The Evaluation Team then opened and reviewed the Financial Proposal. The Report of the Fairness Commissioner with respect to this RFP process is attached as Document 7 to this report.
2. Shenkman Proposal
a) Site and Location
Shenkman has obtained an agreement to lease an approximately 28.6 acre site, located on Ottawa Airport lands adjacent to the intersection of the Airport Parkway and Uplands Drive, shown as Parcel “A” on Document 1 attached to this report.
The
Agreement to Lease from the Airport Authority provides for a lease term
commencing on, or about, September 2010 and ending on January 30, 2057 and for Shenkman
to have an option to lease, within the next 5 years, an additional approximately
4.7 acres shown as Parcel “B” on Document 1.
The Agreement to Lease from the Ottawa Airport Authority authorizes
the use of the lands to be rented for the construction and operation of a trade
show and exhibition centre, with associated parking and a hotel.
The site is zoned to permit a “public place of assembly” facility subject to the facility being provided in conjunction with an airport terminal or a hotel facility.
From
an infrastructure perspective, municipal services are available adjacent to or
near the site. Water supply is readily available with no off-site costs foreseen and modest
off-site costs are anticipated to provide wastewater servicing to the
development. Stormwater management objectives may be achieved through either
on-site measures or off-site upgrades of airport facilities.
b) Proposed Exposition Hall
Facility - City Objectives/Requirements
As shown on Document 2 attached to this report, the Shenkman Proposal provides for a floor plan with an approximately 218,000 sq. ft. public Exposition Hall Facility, including a 150,000 sq. ft. clear span exhibit hall, and over 2000 parking spaces on the 28.6 site at the Airport as Phase 1 of a development that will ultimately include a hotel with 90 suites as Phase 2.
Document 3 attached to this report shows the architectural concept for the front façade of the proposed facility.
The Shenkman Proposal included a LEED Canada-NC 1.0
Project Checklist that indicates the project should achieve sufficient points
to meet at least the LEED Silver requirements.
The Shenkman
Proposal also included a preliminary transportation analysis that concluded
that the proposed Exposition Hall facility could be recommended from a
transportation perspective subject to undertaking certain localized mitigation
measures. A summary of the transportation analysis conclusions and associated
mitigation measures are set out in Document 5 attached to this report.
An extract from the Shenkman Proposal indicating how the Proposal fulfills the City’s objectives and requirements for an Exposition Hall Facility is attached to this report as Document 4.
c) Project Schedule
The proposed schedule in the Shenkman Proposal is based upon the following major milestone assumptions:
June 9, 2010 City Council approval
July 30, 2010 Memorandum of Agreement with City
Aug. 15, 2010 Site Plan application
Sept. 28, 2010 Foundation Permit approval
Nov. 16, 2010 Site Plan approval
Nov. 17, 2010 Commencement of excavation
Dec. 14, 2010 Completion of excavation
Dec. 15, 2010 Base building construction begins
Feb. 2, 2011 Foundation completed
Dec. 11, 2011 Construction completed
Jan. 1, 2012 Facility opens
d) Financial Proposal
The Shenkman proposal indicates they wish to undertake the
design, financing, construction, operations and maintenance of the Exposition
Hall Facility under a Municipal Capital
Facility Agreement (MCFA) with the City.
The proposed MCFA would be for a term of 30 years with
ownership of the facility reverting to the City after 30 years of operations
(2042) and the remaining leasehold interest in the lands until 2057 being
assigned to the City. During the term of
the MCFA, Shenkman is seeking exemptions from all property taxes including
educational taxes and development charges.
The Shenkman proposal indicates a total capital cost for
the project of $39.2 million.
Shenkman proposes making an $8.5 million equity investment
in this project and their proposal assumes that cash flow would be withdrawn
and reinvested on an as needed basis. In
the Agreement to Lease, the Ottawa Airport Authority has agreed to contribute
$1.5 million towards the cost of servicing as a lease inducement to Shenkman.
Shenkman is seeking an $8.5 million contribution from the
City of Ottawa at the start of the project to meet the investment requirements
from a lender’s point of view, in order to ensure a properly financed project
for the next 47 years. The combined
total of $18.5 million is proposed to allow a manageable debt level of $20.7
million to be obtained.
The Shenkman proposal indicates they have received feedback from
the lending community that an exhibition facility, such as the one that they
are proposing, would be considered a “specific use” property. They also
indicate that given the lack of tenant covenants and given their understanding of the Municipal Capital Facility (MCF) provisions
and the reversionary rights associated with such provisions, the lending community requires a more typical P3 format of
debt, with the City providing a head lease for the facility to guarantee
payment of the debt.
The Shenkman financial proforma projects that, over the 30-year
period from opening, they should be in a positive cash flow position and able
to fully repay the debt levels required, without the need for the lender to
call upon a City’s guarantee under the head lease. They state that: “It is based upon this confidence that we are committing $8.5 million
of our equity into the project and
after its initial $8.5 million contribution, there should be no annual contributions
required by the City.”
The Shenkman proposal indicates that at the time of
reversion under the proposed MCFA, the facility should be debt-free, with
projected free cash flow of approximately $3.25 million per annum based on
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) of $3.9
million of EBITDA, less a recommended annual appropriation of approximately
$650,000 for ongoing capital improvements.
Shenkman proposes that at the time of reversion, an
agreed-upon valuation methodology is to be implemented and their ownership
interest would in all likelihood be purchased by the City, but at its option,
with Shenkman receiving 50% of the valuation of the facility, commensurate with
it having advanced 50% of the initial funds that were not borrowed.
Should
the City, unexpectedly, under any circumstances, be required to contribute any
funds under the head lease, these funds would be added to its $8.5 million
initial contribution, thereby decreasing what the City would pay for the
reversionary interest, on a pro rata basis.
3. City
Analysis of Shenkman’s Financial Proposal
Staff have analysed Shenkman’s financial proposal from the City’s
perspective. The services of Paul Knowlton of the Corporate Research Group were
obtained to assist in the financial modelling.
It was determined from the City’s analysis that the Shenkman Proposal, based
on Shenkman’s assumptions, would likely require that in addition to the
initially proposed contribution of $8.5 million at the outset, the City provide
further capital in 2042 in the amount of approx. $12.3 million to buy-out the
Shenkman 50% of projected future cash flow as well as a potential further $10.7 million in 2057 to demolish the facility at
the end of the lease term.
This indicates that the net present value (NPV)
to the City would be approximately -$2.7 million which would mean that the City
would only recover $5.8 million (in NPV terms) of its initial contribution even
after committing to potential future expenditures totalling approximately $23
million.
Since the Shenkman Proposal indicates that
the City would have to guarantee the debt payments for the $20.7 million in
financing, the City’s analysis also included a sensitivity analysis regarding
the projected costs and revenues as set out in the Shenkman Proposal. This
further analysis indicates that there is a relatively high risk that the City would not recover any of its $8.5 million
initial contribution and also potentially might have an additional loss of
approximately $5 million in NPV
terms (i.e. NPV = -$13.5 million).
In order to eliminate any future payments by
the City after making the proposed $8.5 million contribution, City staff then
investigated the option of the MCFA having a term ending on January 30, 2057 when
the ground lease terminates and with Shenkman buying out the proposed City’s
50% interest in 2042 when the debt is fully paid. In this option the City could
enter into a head lease to guarantee the debt financing but would then look to
Shenkman to cover these debt payments as priority disbursements from revenues
received and/or by providing suitable financial security to cover the payments.
Under this option, there would be a NPV to
the City of -$5.5 million using Shenkman’s assumptions for cost and revenue and
-$6.9 million using the more conservative assumption for cost and revenues in
the City’s sensitivity analysis.
On this basis the City would only recover $1.6
to $3.0 million (in NPV terms) of its proposed $8.5 million contribution but
would not be required to make any additional financial contribution throughout
the term of the proposed MCFA in order to accomplish its objectives for this
project.
This means that the City’s risk would limited
to the original $8.5 million and that additional revenue would be generated to
the City in 2042 equal to 50% of the valuation of the facility at that time
reducing the City’s contribution (in NPV terms) to between $55 and $6.9 million.
4. Economic and Social Impact Summary
Findings
The
separate staff report “Exposition Hall Facility - Economic and Social Benefits”
(ACS2010-ICS-CSS-0005) that is being forwarded for information to Council when
considering the results of the RFP process for an Exposition Hall Facility,
indicates that there will be a total annual economic benefit to the City of
approximately $12.73M million ($7.47M visitor spending, $5.26M operational
spending). The region would also enjoy the short-term employment and direct
spending generated from the one-time capital investment of approximately $39.2M
to design, construct and fit-up the new facility which will create 237 new
direct jobs and a total of 346 direct, indirect and induced full-time
equivalent jobs.
5. Conclusions
The Shenkman Proposal provides the City with
an opportunity to realize the project objectives of realizing an excellent
public Exposition Hall Facility in an appropriate and accessible location with
the design, construction, operations and management of the facility being
undertaken by a highly qualified and experienced corporate team.
As set out in the report to Council on 10
February 2010, staff identified, as part of its due diligence process in
working towards the preparation of an RFP for a 220,000 sq. ft. Exposition Hall
Facility, that the current $2M in revenue achieved at Lansdowne Park in 2009,
although based on market rents, is not close to being sufficient to cover the
cost of constructing, operating and managing a new 220,000 sq. ft. Exposition
Hall Facility and eventually providing a modest rate of return on investment.
It was recognized then that the City would most likely need to provide some financial support to the project until a private sector proponent can grow trade and consumer show and other exposition hall-related business and achieve a stabilized income that supports both operating costs, debt, and a modest rate of return on the investment. The results of the RFP process for the Exposition Hall confirm this financial reality.
Given
Council’s clear direction to move towards “greening” of Lansdowne and
eliminating the majority of surface parking regardless of whether or not the City proceeds with the Lansdowne
Partnership Plan currently being explored, trade and consumer show facilities
at Lansdowne Park are not financially sustainable in the long term if
structured parking is to be provided for this use.
The construction of a new Exposition Hall
Facility, as proposed by Shenkman, will not only solve the problem of lack of
contiguous exposition hall space that has significantly limited the ability of
the trade and consumer show industry to grow in Ottawa, but will also allow the
City to pursue its ‘greening” objectives for Lansdowne Park while at the same
time realizing $12.73M in annual economic benefits as well at the one-time
benefits associated with the proposed $39.2M capital expenditure.
As a result, staff recommend pursuing
negotiations for the proposed Exposition Hall Facility on the basis of the
Shenkman’s technical proposal, but using the City staff’s proposed financial
option described above wherein the City would agree to:
·
Contribute
$8.5M towards the $39.2M in capital costs subject to Shenkman guaranteeing to
cover any and all capital budget overruns and being responsible for all
operating losses;
·
Enter into
a head lease to guarantee project financing subject to Shenkman agreeing to
cover these debt payments (approx. $1.46 million per annum) as priority
disbursements from the operational revenues received and/or by providing
suitable financial security to cover the payments to ensure the City does not
have the all the risk of covering debt payments due to operating losses;
·
Sell its
50% interest in the project’s value in 2042 to Shenkman when the debt is fully
paid;
·
Enter
into a MCFA, with a term ending on January 30, 2057 subject to the City having
an option for the reversionary interest in the facility if the airport
Authority’s lease is extended beyond February 1, 2057, to provide for the
City’s financial contribution and for the facility to be exempt from property
taxes and development charges.
In negotiating an MCFA in this case, the proposed agreement will clearly set out that the facility is being designated as a Municipal Capital Facility by City Council within the Class of “cultural, recreational or tourist facilities” for the municipal purpose of replacing and enhancing the existing public Exposition Hall facilities at Lansdowne Park whose facilities have been used primarily for the benefit of the general public for trade and consumer shows, community and charitable events.
Since
the proposed site is owned by “The Crown”, the provisions in the proposed
agreements between the City and the proponent, with respect to the reversionary
interest in the facility, will be consistent with those of the proposed Ground
Lease between the Airport Authority and the proponent and also those of the
Head Lease between the Airport Authority and “The Crown”.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Any environmental implications associated with the recommendations in this report will be identified as part of the Site Plan approval process for the proposed Exposition Hall Facility.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no rural implications associated with the recommendations in this report.
CONSULTATION
Staff consulted with the Ottawa Association of Exposition Managers (OAEM) prior to preparing the report regarding the RFP process for the Exposition Hall Facility that was considered by Council on 10 February 2010.
At that time, the OAEM emphasised that it is the lack of contiguous
exposition hall space that has significantly limited the ability of the trade
and consumer show industry to grow in Ottawa and that a single large facility,
that can be subdivided as described in this report, would provide the
necessary “engine” to drive this growth.
In this regard, they believe that
this growth will result in pressures to expand the facility in the near future.
The OAEM representatives indicated they were supportive of the RFP
process recommended in that report.
No further consultation has taken place with the OAEM regarding the
current report since it relates to reporting on the results of the approved RFP
Process and recommendations based on compliance with the City’s objectives and
RFOP criteria approved by Council on 10 February 2010.
The financial option proposed by City staff, as set out in this report, has been discussed with Shenkman who have indicated a willingness to proceed with negotiation on that basis.
COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)
The implications of this report are city-wide; however, the ward councillor for the ward in which the proposed Shenkman facility is to be located is being made aware of the recommendations of this report.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT
IMPLICATIONS
In order to assist the proponent in financing the project, the City could
consider making a one time financial contribution or it could provide annual
financial operating grants and/or exempt the Exhibition Hall Facility from
property taxes and development charges depending on the nature of the proposal.
However, under Section 106 of the Municipal
Act, 2001, the City cannot provide bonuses to third parties unless
otherwise authorized elsewhere in the Act or under the Regulations of the Act.
Section 110 of the Municipal Act,
2001 permits municipalities to enter into Municipal Capital Facility
Agreements (MCFAs) and provide assistance, property tax and development charge
exemptions subject to the provisions of Regulation 603/06.
Sections 2 & 3 of Regulation 603/06 set out the classes of Municipal
Capital Facility uses that are eligible for assistance and exemptions from
property tax and development charges, and the only class under which the trade
show facility would qualify would be “municipal facilities for cultural,
recreational or tourist activities.” The Regulation goes on to provide at Section
6, that assistance and exemptions from tax and development charges can only be
provided to this “recreational-cultural- tourist” class of facility in the
following circumstances:
(a) The municipality or another municipality or a public sector
entity owns, or agrees to purchase, or
will own on reversion of the property, the municipal capital facilities,
including the land on which they are situated; and
(b) The council has declared by resolution that the municipal capital
facilities are “for the purposes of the municipality and
are for
public use.”
Public sector entities are defined as “The Crown”, Local Board, University in Ontario, and College in Ontario. In negotiating an MCFA in this case, the proposed agreement should clearly set out that the facility is being provided within the Class of “cultural, recreational or tourist facilities” for the municipal purpose of replacing and enhancing, the existing public Exposition Hall facilities at Lansdowne Park whose facilities have been used primarily for the benefit of the general public for trade and consumer shows, community and charitable events.
Since the proposed site is owned
by “The Crown”, the provisions in the proposed agreements, between the City and
the proponent, with respect to the reversionary interest in the facility must
be consistent with the those of the proposed Ground Lease between the Airport
Authority and the proponent and also those of the head lease between the
Airport Authority and “The Crown”.
TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS
There
are no technical implications to implementing the recommendations in this
report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Should Council approve the recommendations set out in this report, the only source available to fund the $8.5M contribution would be debt. This will create a budget pressure when debt service charges would start (approx. $711,300/yr @5.5% over 20 years).
The proposed agreement must include provisions to guarantee that Shenkman will fund any and all operating losses and make all debt payments without further City financial assistance. Otherwise there could be a potential liability to the City for making debt payments under the proposed head lease and, as a result, a source of funding would be required from a City operating budget to make these payments of up to approximately $1.463M per year.
Staff have
explored the potential for upper tier funding for the development of future trade
show space in Ottawa and have determined that the only program for which the
proposed Exposition Hall Facility project might potentially qualify is Round 2
of the P3 Canada Fund. However, the submission requirements indicate that the
timing and requirements for funding under this round are not likely compatible
with those for the City’s project. Staff have initiated discussions with the
local contact for the P3 Canada Fund to obtain more information on the
potential eligibility of the City’s project before Council considers this
report on 28 June 2010.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1:
Proposed Property Plan
Document 2:
Proposed Building Site and Floor Plans
Document 3:
Proposed Building Façade
Document 4:
Shenkman Proposal - Fulfilling City Objectives
Document 5:
Summary of Preliminary Transportation Analysis Conclusions
Document 6: Summary
– RFP Procurement Process
Document 7:
Fairness Commissioner’s Report
Document 8: RFP Document
and Addenda
Document 9:
RFP Process – Council Approved Provisions – February 2010
DISPOSITION
Subject to Committee and Council approval, staff will
implement the recommendations as outlined in the report.
DOCUMENT 1
PROPOSED PROPERTY PLAN
DOCUMENT 2
PROPOSED BUILDING
SITE AND FLOOR PLANS
DOCUMENT 3
PROPOSED BUILDING FAÇADE
DOCUMENT 4
SHENKMAN PROPOSAL
- FULFILLING CITY OBJECTIVES
City objective – Consolidation into a single
exhibition facility at a new location
“To enhance the public Exposition Hall facilities in Ottawa by replacing the three existing facilities at Lansdowne Park with a single public Exposition Hall facility at another location in the City.”
Our proposal meets the objective of replacing the existing facilities at Lansdowne with a single exhibition facility conveniently located at Ottawa’s MacDonald-Cartier International Airport.
We have obtained
a fantastic site, fully visible from one of the main gateways to the City of
Our experienced management team has worked with the Ottawa Association of Exposition Managers (“OAEM”) and many of the show producers to ensure the selected site suits their needs and requirements. We understand the logistical requirements of both event organizers and their clients, and certainly recognize the need for a location that will be readily accepted by the public.
Like
Public Transportation
Transit service to the MacDonald-Cartier International Airport is currently provided by regular Route 147 and Transitway Routes 97 and 99.
·
Route 147
loops between South Keys, which is approximately 2 km north of the site, and
the Airport via
· Route 97 currently travels on the Transitway between the Bayshore Station and the South Keys Station and continues on to serve the Airport via the Airport Parkway. There is currently a Request Stop for Route 97 that forces southbound buses to exit the Airport Parkway at Lester/Uplands, while the northbound stop is located on the Airport Parkway near the Hilton Garden Hotel.
·
Route 99
provides service to/from the Riverside South Community and the
· During peak hours, Routes 97 and 99 offer 5 to 10 minute frequencies.
With regard to future public transit, the Ultimate Rapid Transit Network, identified within the TMP, indicates light rail transit is planned to be in place by year 2031 between the downtown core of Ottawa and the Riverside South Community (running adjacent to the Airport).
Existing
Transit Routes to Area of Proposed Site
Access by Car
The proposed site is bounded by the Airport Parkway (a 2-lane arterial roadway with controlled access) and Uplands Drive (a 2-lane collector providing access to Hunt Club Road and Lester Road). (Uplands Drive forms part of the Urban Truck Route, as trucks are not permitted on the Airport Parkway.)
Other major roadways within close proximity include:
· Hunt Club Road (4-lane arterial) is 1.5 km north of the site;
· Lester Road (2-lane arterial) is 0.1 km south of the site;
· Leitrim Road (2-lane arterial) is 2.5 km south of the site;
· Bank Street (4-lane arterial) is 2.9 km east of the site;
· Limebank Road (2-lane arterial) is 3.0 km west of the site; and
· River Road/Riverside Drive (4-lane arterial) is 3.0 km west of the site.
Highway 416 is
located 11 km to the west with a direct connection to
Highway 417 is
located 8 km to the east with a direct connection to
There are numerous planned road widenings identified within the TMP that will provide additional capacity and improved accessibility to the site:
· Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge; new bridge crossing of the Rideau River linking Strandherd and Earl Armstrong to be operational by 2012;
· Earl Armstrong Road: widen from 2-lanes to 4-lanes from River to Limebank by 2015; widen from 2-lanes to 4-lanes from Limebank to High by 2031; new 2-lane road from High to Bank by 2031;
· Limebank Road: widen from 2-lanes to 4-lanes from Riverside to Earl Armstrong by 2015;
· Airport Parkway: widen from 2-lanes to 4-lanes from Brookfield to MacDonald-Cartier International Airport by 2022;
· Hunt Club Road: widen from 4-lanes to 6-lanes from Riverside to Bank by 2031;
· Riverside Drive: widen from 4-lanes to 6-lanes from Hunt Club to Limebank by 2031;
· Leitrim Road: widen from 2-lanes to 4-lanes from River to east of Limebank and new re-aligned 4-lanes from east of Limebank to Bowesville by 2031; and
· Possible new Rideau River Bridge crossing at a location to be determined between Hunt Club Road and the future Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge by 2031.
Summary
From strictly a location perspective, our site offers:
· Improved bus and car transportation options for attendees;
· Improved parking with over 2,000 spots located on-site and adjacent to the central lobby leading to all Hall entrances; and most importantly,
· A central location that can serve and draw from all regions of the City.
The proposed
location, combined with the many facility design and amenities, as described
below, will certainly enhance the consumer and trade show business in
City
objective – Meeting the requirements of the trade and consumer show industry
“To ensure the new public Exposition Hall facility meets the use
requirements of the trade and consumer show industry, as well as community and
charitable organizations, by having an exhibit hall space with a minimum area
of 150,000 sq. ft. together with adequate support facilities in a building
annex of approximately 70,000 sq. ft., convenient parking and vehicular access,
and public transit availability.”
In an addendum to its RFP, dated April 8, 2010, the City modified its requirement of a 70,000 sq, ft. annex, by stating:
“A building annex with a total floor area of
70,000 sq. ft. is not a specific requirement and the exact type, size and
location of the spaces in the annex, including spaces on different levels, is
up to the proponent in terms of the design provided that adequate support
facilities are provided to meet the requirements of the proponent’s business
plan related to a minimum 150,000 sq. ft. exhibit hall.”
As stated
earlier, our group has had extensive consultations with the OAEM and many trade
show managers in the design and functionality of our building. We have also drawn upon the experience of our
partners in developing, managing, and continually expanding the International
Centre in the
Our building is fully air conditioned and features 150,000 sq. ft. of contiguous, ground floor exhibition space, plus 68,000 sq. ft. of ancillary space which includes a spacious central lobby, show offices, sanitary facilities, coat check, snack bars, administration offices, meeting rooms, and a back-of-house area which houses building maintenance and operations offices and storage, sub-contractor offices and storage, covered shipping and receiving area and kitchen facilities.
A more detailed look at some of the building’s many features follows.
SIMULTANEOUS EVENT CAPACITY
The four individual exhibition halls (Halls 1-4) allow four different events to run simultaneously on the ground floor. Each hall can operate as a self-contained unit with its own show office, snack bar, washroom facilities and access to the four meeting rooms. Halls 2 and 3 each have an over-sized, drive-in door for direct freight delivery to the show floor. All four halls have direct access to the centralized, enclosed shipping and receiving areas, serviced by eight docks with hydraulic or air levellers.
FLEXIBLE HALL CONFIGURABILITY:
The four contiguous halls (Halls 1-4) are accessed from a single, central lobby. All halls can be used independently or combined in various ways as listed below. (Figures are quoted in sq. ft.)
Hall combination Exhibit hall
square footage available
Hall 1 30,000
Hall 4 30,000
Hall 2 40,000
Hall 3 50,000
Halls 1 & 2 70,000
Halls 2 & 3 90,000
Halls 1, 2 & 3 120,000
Halls 2, 3 & 4 120,000
Halls 1, 2, 3, & 4 150,000
Halls1 and 2 and Halls 3 and 4 are separated by sound attenuated walls. Access between adjoining halls is provided through large, strategically placed, roll-up doors.
COLUMN-FREE SPAN
Column-free construction, while more costly to build, allows event organizers to have the utmost flexibility and choice when it comes to deciding on how to arrange the floor area for their events. The absence of columns enables show organizers to achieve floor layouts with maximum yield, in order to sell the most number of booths to their exhibitors. This translates into higher revenue for show management.
HIGH CEILING HEIGHT
Many different industries host or participate in trade and consumer shows. Each has unique needs when it comes to exhibiting their products or services. Both shows and special events often also have unique staging or entertainment requirements. By designing a building with an extremely high, maximum ceiling of 24 ft, we can satisfy the widest range of customers’ needs with respect to height.
HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE EXHIBITION FLOORS
A heavy duty, concrete, slab-on grade floor is easy to clean and maintain and can be readily covered by a variety of other decorative flooring materials. This surface will accommodate events with heavy exhibits, and prevent or limit vibrations when heavy equipment is being operated. When necessary, exhibitors can drive cars, trucks or tractor trailers directly onto the floor to unload their exhibits.
CENTRALIZED ENTRANCE LOBBY
Patrons can park anywhere on the property, enter the lobby via the nearest door and proceed in comfort to the entrance of the hall hosting their event. Each of the four halls has its own show office accessed from the central lobby as well as from the show floor. The lobby offers patrons a central coat check area, access to ticket sellers, registration services, food service, first aid, and building security information.
MEETING ROOMS
This facility
was designed specifically to meet the needs of
SHOW OFFICES
Each hall has its own furnished show office suite, accessible from both the lobby and the show floor.
LOADING FACILITIES
The loading facilities have been designed to make it easy to move goods in and out of the building. Exhibit goods can be delivered on dollies to all halls after being unloaded at the rear of the building at a centralized, covered, climate controlled, shipping and receiving area that is equipped with eight docks with hydraulic or air levellers. Two of the four halls each have a drive-in door, which will enable exhibitors and event managers to deliver goods directly to the show floor.
GREEN INITIATIVES:
Not only has the proposed facility been designed to meet the requirements of LEEDS Silver certification, but we are also very much committed to implementing and encouraging green operating initiatives. Our plan is for the new exhibition facility to become a Leader in the Ontario Environmental Leaders Program (OEL), a provincial initiative which requires “an environmental management system, a good environmental compliance record and a commitment to beyond compliance targets.”
The building’s lighting systems, fixtures, and mechanical and electrical controls are designed to lower energy usage. Occupancy sensors, dimmer controls, LED signage, and compact fluorescents will be used to reduce lighting levels and achieve significant savings.
Energy use will be carefully monitored. Hall temperatures will be adjusted during non-occupancy periods to conserve energy.
Water conservation features will include low flow, plumbing fixtures.
Trash handling removal policies will be implemented that encourage sorting and recycling. This initiative will include placing specially marked recycling bins on the show floors. Efforts will be made to separate glass, paper, wood, plastic, organic materials, and other waste, wherever possible.
Traditional paper products and cleaning solvents will be replaced by ‘green-certified products (such as those bearing Green Seal, GreenGuard, FSC (Forestry Stewardship Council), and EcoLogo marks.) Washrooms will feature post-consumer waste content (PCW) hand towels.
Air quality will be monitored by CO2 sensors.
A program will be designed to increase customer and attendee awareness of the opportunities available to them to promote environmental sustainability within the facility. Show organizers and industry suppliers will all be encouraged to themselves use “green” products while in the building.
KITCHEN
The 3,000 sq. ft. kitchen has yet to be designed, but it will include up-to-date, energy-efficient equipment that allows the on-site caterer to provide healthy food choices at the centre’s snack bars, as well as provide catering menus and services to customers of the facility.
LIGHTING
We will use energy efficient fluorescent bulbs, ballasts and metal halide lamps, LED exit signs, occupancy sensors, and time of use controls to manage energy usage while still providing appropriate lighting levels in the various areas of the facility.
HVAC
HVAC systems will be chosen that minimize energy loads, operate efficiently and allow the venue to have maximum flexibility when it comes to zoned climate controls. A computerized mechanical/electrical system that interacts with our lighting system will allow us to regulate energy usage, while still providing optimal levels of comfort for the building’s occupants.
ACCESS TO THE SITE
The proposed
Site Plan indicates two vehicular connections to Uplands Drive for general
purpose traffic, as well as a third service lane with gated control for service
vehicles located at the northern extent of the site. The two general-purpose driveways are
centrally located and provide well-distributed access and egress from the
surface parking. The site driveways are
noted to be aligned with existing roadways to the west, namely
PARKING
Although the type of parking control system has not yet been determined (i.e., flat fee payment upon entry versus pay per use upon exit), the layout of the parking aisles results in very good opportunities for vehicular circulation. The parking lots will accommodate 2,000 cars, be well lit, well marked, nicely landscaped, and laid out so as to allow easy access to the central lobby containing entrances to all four halls.
Sidewalks are proposed on both sides of the two main driveway connections that lead to well marked pedestrian crossing areas adjacent to the building entrance facade.
Provision for bicycle parking is not yet identified on the Site Plan, but will be provided near the building in a well-lit and secure location.
SERVICE VEHICLE AND LOADING AREAS
Service
vehicles, including large tractor trailers, as well as buses, will use a
dedicated driveway entrance, near
Truck turning
templates will be applied to ensure that there will be sufficient manoeuvring
space on-site for large trucks to efficiently access the loading docks. Turning templates will also be applied at the
SUMMARY
We believe our building more than meets the Exposition Hall requirements for the trade and consumer industry, as well as for events hosted by community and charitable organizations.
City
objective
– Finding the right private sector partner
“To enter into an agreement with a private sector partner with the
necessary capabilities to design, finance, and construct the new public
Exposition Hall facility and to operate
and maintain it for a period of at least 30 years;”
The ownership
group will be a co-tenancy, majority owned by Shenkman Group of Companies. (See company profile in Appendix
A.) Shenkman Group of Companies is a
real property developer headquartered in
Shenkman Group
of Companies is partnering with Blue Hawk Investments Company for this project.
Blue Hawk Investments Company is the
largest shareholder in T.I.C.C. Limited, which developed and owns the
International Centre, located across from
The International Centre opened in 1972, today sits on over 50 acres of land, and is over a million sq. ft .in size, with 500,000 sq. ft. of exhibit space in eight inter-connected halls, a 40,000 square foot conference centre, a home furnishings mart, government offices, and parking for 4,000 cars. The largest exhibition hall at the International Centre has an area of 100,000 square feet and is of a similar design to that proposed for the new exhibition facility in this submission.
The partners, board of directors, and senior management combine all of the considerable talent and experience necessary to:
·
Understand the dynamics of the trade and
consumer show industry in the
·
Design and construct a new exhibition facility
in
· Finance this project;
· Maintain the building facility in excellent working order and in an environmentally sustainable manner; and
· Operate the business of the exhibition facility in an efficient, profitable manner, while simultaneously meeting the highest standards of customer service.
Principals behind Shenkman Group of Companies and Blue Hawk Investments Company include:
o
Kevin
McCrann, who will represent the majority investor in the project on the
Board of Directors. Kevin is a CA and
CPA and has a graduate degree in Accountancy.
Kevin has extensive experience in the acquisition and development of
projects of various sizes and descriptions.
Kevin has managed well in excess of $100 million of investments for the
Shenkman Group of Companies for 18 years.
He is very knowledgeable in all aspects of financing for projects of
this nature and has extensive development experience within the City of
o William Shenkman, who has an extensive background in private investment, which includes not only structuring and financing transactions, but also adding value by playing a key management role and bringing significant new relationships to each deal. Outside of the business realm, William. Shenkman is active in philanthropic endeavours, and acts as Chairman of the Shenkman Family Foundation.
o
Stanley
Shenkman, who is the founder and former CEO of the International Centre and
President of Blue Hawk Investments Company. Much of the design of the
International Centre was done by, or under the guidance of Stanley Shenkman,
who is a retired architect by profession. Stanley Shenkman has contributed
advice on the location and design of our proposed
o
James
Shenkman, who is a lawyer by training, but has been an entrepreneur for
most of his career. He has managed businesses in transportation, publishing,
and conference organization and launched numerous brands and products, both
within
The management of our new facility includes:
·
Gail
Bernstein, General Manager, who has over 16 years of management experience,
including as CEO, at the International Centre.
Gail is widely respected throughout the industry as an expert in the
management of exposition and trade show facilities. Gail has extensively
consulted the
·
Josh
Zaret, Assistant General Manager, who will help oversee the day-to-day
operations and business of the new facility.
He has a significant amount of experience in running active real estate
operations through his company Big Rock Management Ltd. His creativity, enthusiasm and proven
business acumen, combined with his local knowledge of the
City
objective – Minimizing the City’s financial contribution
“To minimize the City’s financial contribution in providing a new public Exposition Hall facility.”
As detailed in our response to Section 13 Financial Proposal, we believe our submission provides the City with a private sector partner that is committing a substantial equity investment, which will minimize the city’s financial contribution.
Complete financial projections and analysis have been provided separately, as per the requirements of this RFP.
City
objective
– Opening by no later than March, 2012
“To have the new public Exposition Hall facility open for use by 1 September 2011, if possible, and no later than 1 March 2012. “
Assuming that our submission is accepted by the City in June, 2010, as indicated in the Master Project Schedule (included in the form of a Gantt chart as Appendix H), we believe that our new exhibition building will be ready to open for business in early January, 2012.
While this planned opening date is not as early as September, 2011, we are confident of both being able to meet this deadline and that any early target date would not be reasonable. We have taken into consideration the time requirements for completion of legal agreements, planning approval, site preparation, and construction. We believe that it would be unwise to promise trade and consumer show organizers any earlier date, because it would be very disruptive for them if delays were encountered. However, the excellent reputation that we wish to establish from the beginning with show organizers would depend upon delivering the finished building on time.
Compliance with Annex A Specifications
The design of the new single-storey, 218,000 square foot, exhibition facility fully complies with the specifications provided in Annex A of the RFP, as amended. These specifications relate to Overall Facility Requirements, Main Exhibit Hall and Support Facilities.
LEED™ Silver level certification
Both the building and site will be designed with the objective of achieving LEED™ Silver level certification. A checklist supporting this intention is attached to this submission as Appendix W.
Functional, flexible, and efficient venue
Our exhibition facility is
intended to provide the City of
Using attractive, durable and easily maintained building materials and finishes, the new facility will offer naturally lit and airy public spaces.
Main exhibition hall
At its core, the new facility offers 150,000 square feet of column-free space for the Main Exhibition Hall, subdivided into four halls whose areas are 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 and 30,000 square feet respectively and can be rented together to also offer contiguous spaces of 70,000, 90,000, and 120, 000 square feet.
Full height partitions separating each of the halls include openings for attendees to move between halls for events which occupy the entirety of those spaces.
The halls are contained within a pre-engineered long-span structure, featuring a minimum clear 24-foot height below suspended mechanical air distribution, sprinklers and lighting. The Main Exhibition Hall will be finished to light industrial warehouse standards. Within the halls, the floor slab is finished with a concrete sealer.
Support facilities
The halls are fronted by a generously proportioned public space which provides a bright, airy and welcoming introduction to the new facility.
Including crush and circulation space outside the halls, this public space contains common facilities such as coat check, portable ticket kiosks, information counters, space for portable turnstiles at hall entrances, washrooms connected both to the halls and to the public space for maximum operational flexibility, janitorial rooms and building services.
Show offices containing facilities for event organizers are located in the public space with direct access both to the public space and to the halls they serve.
Two snack bars are located, one each to provide service to Halls 1 and 2, and Halls 3 and 4.
The public space will not be finished to the lavish standard of a convention centre, but provide an attractive, durable and easily maintained palette of materials and finishes.
Four, 2,000 square foot meeting/hospitality rooms are accessed from the public space. Movable walls between pairs of rooms can be opened to create meeting spaces of 4,000 square feet.
Offices for centre management staff are located at the west end of the public space.
The new facility is planned to efficiently secure and segregate “back of house” functions from all spaces accessed by the visiting public.
A 24-foot wide corridor runs across the north end of the halls, providing each hall with connection to eight depressed loading docks, oversized doors providing access for truck trailers directly to each hall, building services and washrooms for building and event organizer staff.
A single storey extension, located north of the service corridor, contains a 3,000 square foot wing for maintenance, workshop and security offices, as well as a 3,000 square foot, third-party operated kitchen.
DOCUMENT 5
SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSIONS
The preliminary transportation analysis accompanying the Shenkman
Proposal sets out transportation related conclusions as follows:
- the
proposed site offers very good convenience when compared to the existing location
of the trade show facility at Lansdowne Park as a result of maintaining a relatively
central location within the City of Ottawa and providing good
accessibility through the current and planned transit/road infrastructure
(as outlined in the TMP);
- the
proposed land use appears to be very consistent with the adjacent
employment based land uses currently being considered surrounding the
Airport Lands, which is considered advantageous from a transportation
perspective as it will promote more balanced use of the available/proposed
capacity;
- during much
of the day, there is presently considerable spare capacity on the study area’s
transportations network, including the Airport Parkway; Uplands Drive,
Alert Road, and Lester Road;
- the
proposed trade show facility is expected to generate nearly 900 veh/h
during major events, but this peak hour of the generator is not expected
to occur coincident with the commuter peak hour (rather during weekends
when background traffic at this location are quite low). During the
critical afternoon commuter peak hour, the analysis indicates up to 500
veh/h could be generated;
- there are
currently several constraints at key intersections during the afternoon
peak hour, and although the proposed facility does not contribute
significantly to the most critical movements, additional localized
capacity improvements at these intersections, as identified within this
report, may be required to support the proposed development;
- the Lester
Road Corridor is currently a heavily travelled corridor as traffic to/from
the south end of the City use it to connect to the Airport and
- the Site
Plan for the proposed facility exhibits good connectivity to the adjacent
road network, good on-site circulation, and appropriate facilities for
pedestrian and service vehicles.
The preliminary analysis herein indicates that additional localized
roadway/intersection capacity may be required to support the projected peak
hour travel demands associated of the proposed development.
Specifically, subject to
further detailed analysis, the following are recommended for consideration:
- Additional
vehicular storage on the southbound off-ramp from the
- Auxiliary
westbound right-turn lane on
- Possible
traffic signal control (TSC) at the Uplands/Site Drive/Airport Access intersection.
This would be subject to signal warrants being satisfied;
- Auxiliary
southbound left-turn lane at the Uplands/Site Drive/Research intersection.
TSC is likely not required, but this would be subject to a warrant
analysis;
- Additional
eastbound left-turn storage approaching the Alert/Lester/Airport on-ramp intersection.
A preliminary evaluation indicates maximum storage for up to approximately
600 veh/h would be required (peak hour of generator), which equates to 125 m of
storage (assuming the existing 60 second cycle). During the commuter afternoon
peak hour, the projected demand for the eastbound left-turn movement would be
half this value. There is currently approximately 50 m of storage to accommodate
the existing maximum volume of 110 veh/h during the morning peak hour.
Although subject to further investigation, there would appear to be
sufficient width to accommodate one additional lane between the piers supporting
the Airport Parkway overpass of Alert/Lester Road (resulting in a three lane cross
section), which could be used for either additional eastbound left-turn storage
or a through lane. The best allocation of this space requires further investigation
and consultation with City of
The proposed trade show
facility, in isolation, is not expected to trigger widening of the Uplands/Alert/Lester
Corridor. In the fullness of time, however, as other area development comes
on-line, including for example the
Therefore, the site of
Shenkman’s proposed trade show facility is recommended from a transportation
perspective subject to the implementation of mitigation measures outlined within
this report.
DOCUMENT 6
SUMMARY OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS
RFP No. 01410-97165-P01
Construction, Operation and Finance of a Trade and Consumer Show Facility
A
Request For Proposal (RFP) was issued 02 March 2010 on MERX by the Supply
Branch, to seek proposals for the Construction, Operation and Finance of a
Trade and Consumer Show Facility.
Interest
from service providers was high, with 39 companies downloading the Request for
Proposal (RFP) document. Three of these companies met with City officials in
“Commercially Confidential” meetings. The purpose of these meetings was to
anchor key elements of the RFP and provide an opportunity for proponents to ask
any questions that they may have, related to the process, or the information
contained in the RFP. In order to ensure
an independent level of scrutiny, Peter Woods, of The Public Sector Company Ltd
was appointed as Fairness Commissioner and questions and answers provided at
these meetings, that were considered by the Fairness Commissioner to be of a
general nature were issued as addenda. Questions and answers viewed as
proprietary were only shared with the Proponent requesting the information.
The RFP closed at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, 06 May 2010. A proposal submission was received from one Proponent, the Shenkman Corporation.
An Evaluation Team, comprised of representatives from the Realty Initiative & Development Branch; Development Review Urban Service Branch; Economic Development Branch; Design & Construction Building/Facility & Parks Branch; Parks, Building & Grounds Operations & Maintenance Branch; and Deputy City Treasurer Corporate Finance Branch and external subject matter experts, facilitated by the Supply Branch. The Evaluation Team evaluated the submission in accordance with the stated project objectives and Council approved priorities, based solely on the written content and the evaluation criteria stipulated in the RFP document. The Fairness Commissioner scrutinized the evaluation process to ensure that it followed the process stipulated in the RFP document.
It was the consensus of the Evaluation Team that the proposal submitted by the Shenkman Corporation met all the mandatory requirements of the RFP, and exceeded the minimum score of 75% (75 points out of 100 points) on the Technical Proposal Requirements.
Following the evaluation of the Technical Proposal Requirements and having identified the Shenkman Corporation as Preferred Proponent, staff initiated discussions to clarify outstanding questions and confirm the terms of a proposed business arrangement. These discussions were facilitated by Supply Branch and scrutinized by the Fairness Commissioner. Shenkman Corporation was advised that any staff recommendations, including the recommendation of Shenkman Corporation as Preferred Proponent and the business agreement, are subject to Council approval.
Following the evaluation of the Technical Proposal Requirements, the City proceeded with the following:
- Stage III - Evaluation of the Financial Proposal and
- Stage IV – Due Diligence.
DOCUMENT 7
REPORT
OF THE
FAIRNESS COMMISSIONER
FOR
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND FINANCE
OF A
TRADE AND CONSUMER SHOW FACILITY
FOR
CITY OF
Request for Proposal No. 01410-97165-P01
Peter Woods
PSC The Public Sector Company Limited
May 27, 2010
Introduction
As Fairness
Commissioner, I hereby submit my Report pertaining to the competitive
procurement process for “Construction, Operation and Finance of a Trade and
Consumer Show Facility” undertaken by the City of
Throughout the RFP
process and subsequent evaluation process, I received the full co-operation of
all concerned with the Trade and Consumer Show Facility project. All of my comments and suggestions offered
during the process were carefully considered and appropriate action taken. I am also satisfied throughout the evaluation
process that arrangements existed and were properly exercised to protect the confidentiality
of the proposal received.
This report includes
my attestation of assurance, a summary of the objectives of, and approach to,
the assignment, and activities undertaken.
Fairness Commissioner Attestation of Assurance
As Fairness
Commissioner for the project, it is my assessment that the City of Ottawa
“Construction, Operation and Finance of a Trade and Consumer Show Facility”
procurement process including preparation of the RFP, the bidding period, and
the evaluation process was carried out with openness, transparency, integrity
and impartiality, and that all prospective proponents were treated in a
consistent, reasonable and fair manner.
Objective and Approach of the Fairness Commissioner
Assignment
The overall
objective of the assignment was to ensure that the City of
The approach taken
was to ensure that fairness was built into the process from the start and to
monitor each stage to ensure the prescribed process was followed. For example, solicitation documents and plans
were reviewed in draft form as each was developed and any potential fairness-related
issues brought to the attention of City officials so that adjustments could be
agreed and made before the documents and plans were finalized.
This approach
included, but was not limited to, the following priorities:
a.
Ensure
that the RFP prescribed a sound process that was:
- open
to all proponents that could construct, operate and finance a facility
that met the needs of the City; and
- transparent
by fully describing the process and the rules of the competition so that
all interested proponents would understand what was required, the requirements
of a response, the criteria that would be used to evaluate responses and
the basis of selection;
b.
Provision
of an opportunity for interested proponents to seek answers to questions either during the prescribed inquiry process
specified in the RFP or during a one-on-one confidential meeting;
c.
Ensure
that the process and rules stipulated in the RFP were strictly followed in the
evaluation and selection process;
d.
Ensure
that best evaluation practices were used in the evaluation of proposals and that scores could withstand scrutiny based on
the rules and criteria specified in the RFP; and
e.
Be
sensitive to and to take appropriate action if there was evidence of any bias
during the procurement process.
Fairness Commissioner Activities and Observations
Activities Prior to Release of Formal RFP on
MERX
During the period February
4, 2010 and March 2, 2010, I reviewed background information on the project
including direction from Council and reviewed and provided fairness-related
comments on draft versions of the Request for Proposals.
|
Observation: All fairness-related observations on draft versions of the RFP were considered by City officials and appropriate action taken. |
Activities during the Bid Solicitation Period
The RFP was released
through MERX on March 2, 2010.
During the period March
8, 2010 to May 6, 2010:
a.
I reviewed the RFP as distributed through MERX;
b.
I
discussed in advance with members of the Project Team the need for and contents
of the Addenda 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the RFP
and reviewed the final Addenda dated March 15, 2010, March 17, 2010, April 8,
2010 and April 9, 2010 respectively;
c.
I
observed the three On-one-One Confidential
Meetings held with interested proponents including planning meetings in
preparation for the meetings and post meetings with project staff to coordinate
action required as a result of the meetings; and
d.
I
reviewed all communications with interested proponents
|
Observation: All fairness-related comments on the RFP and addenda were considered by City officials and appropriate action taken. Each of the three One-on-One Confidential Meetings with Proponents was conducted in a consistent manner in accordance with good practices. |
Activities Related to Bid Evaluation
Only one Proposal
was received.
During the period April
30, 2010 to May 21, 2010:
a.
I
reviewed preparations for the evaluation including reviewing the score sheets
and grids that had been prepared to assist in the evaluation;
b.
I
observed the evaluation consensus discussions of both mandatory and rated
requirements of the Technical Proposal and observed the evaluation of the
Financial Proposal;
c.
I
reviewed with the Evaluation Team steps that were taken to clarify with the
Proponent the response to specific mandatory requirements to confirm compliance
and the response received; and
d.
I
reviewed with the Project Team required due diligence action with the Proponent
to ensure consistency with the process specified in the RFP.
|
Observation: The evaluation including scoring sheets, grids, procedures, clarification questions and due diligence action were consistent with the RFP and best evaluation practice. There was no indication of bias. |
Peter E. Woods
Fairness
Commissioner
PSC The Public
Sector Company Limited
DOCUMENT 8
RFP DOCUMENT & ADDENDUMS -
EXPOSTION HALL FACILITY
Request for Proposal - RFP No.
01410-97165-P01
Construction, Operation and Finance of a Trade and Consumer Show
Facility
1. Background
The City of
As part of the City’s consultation process
related to the Lansdowne Park redevelopment planning process, the trade and
consumer show industry, as represented by the Ottawa Association of Exhibition
Managers (OAEM), has emphasized that the lack of contiguous exposition hall
space has significantly limited the ability of the trade and consumer show
industry to grow in Ottawa and that a single, large facility, that can be
subdivided, would provide the necessary facility to enable this growth. The
OAEM has indicated that it would strongly support a City initiative to develop
a new Exposition Hall Facility with a minimum of 150,000 sq. ft. of contiguous
exhibit hall space with appropriate ancillary spaces and approximately 2000
parking spaces.
The City has also recognized, in the
To this end, the City seeks to identify Proponent who would design,
construct, operate, finance and maintain an Exposition Hall Facility as more
particularly described in Annex “A”. Additional information concerning the trade and consumer Show business at
This Request for Proposal (“RFP”)
will not result in a final contract or agreement for the development of the
Exposition Hall Facility. Rather, the process is intended to identify a
Preferred Proponent with whom the City could negotiate if it decides, in its
sole and absolute discretion, to proceed with the creation of the Exhibition
Hall Facility. The final decision will be contingent, at least in part, on the
redevelopment of
In order to assist in financing the project, the City is prepared to
consider providing financial operating grants and/or exempting the Exposition
Hall Facility from property taxes; however, the Municipal Act, 2001 restricts the provision of financial assistance
to commercial enterprises.
As a result, the Exposition Hall Facility would have to be designated as
a Municipal Capital Facility before financial assistance could be
provided. An additional condition of any
such assistance would be that the proposed Exposition Hall Facility meets or
exceeds the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) Silver
requirement.
For ease of reference, Annex “C” contains additional information with
respect to the requirements for designating the Exposition Hall Facility as a
Municipal Capital Facility as well as information concerning the Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) Silver requirement.
2.
Objectives
The City’s objectives for the project
are:
· To enhance the public exposition hall facilities in Ottawa by replacing the three existing facilities at Lansdowne Park with a single public Exposition Hall Facility at another location in the City;
· To ensure the new public Exposition Hall Facility meets the use requirements of the trade and consumer show industry, as well as community and charitable organizations, by having an exhibit hall space with a minimum area of 150,000 sq. ft. of contiguous space together with adequate support facilities in a building annex of approximately 70,000 sq. ft., convenient parking and vehicular access as well as public transit availability;
· To enter into negotiations with a private sector partner with the necessary capabilities to design, finance, and construct the new public Exposition Hall Facility and to operate and maintain it for a period of at least 30 years;
· To minimize the City’s financial contribution in providing a new public Exposition Hall facility; and
· To have the new public Exposition Hall facility open for use by 01 September 2011, if possible, and no later than 01 March 2012.
3.
RFP Timeline
|
Event |
Date |
|
Issuance of the RFP Document |
03 March 2010 |
|
Final date to submit Proponent Confidential Meeting Request Form (Optional) |
12 March 2010 |
|
Proponent Confidential Meetings (Optional) |
15-19 March 2010 |
|
Final Date to Submit Questions |
01 April 2010 |
|
Last Date for Issuance of Responses to Questions |
12 April 2010 |
|
RFP Closing Date |
29 April 2010 - 3:00 PM, Local Time |
|
Evaluation and Selection of the Preferred Proponent |
03-14 May 2010 |
|
Report to Committee |
01 June 2010 |
|
Report to City Council |
09 June 2010 |
|
Negotiations with the Preferred Proponent |
Anticipated in June-July 2010 |
4.
Administrative Authority
For further information regarding the Request for Proposal, please contact:
City of
Finance Department
Supply Branch
4th
Floor,
Attention: Brian T. Hum
Title: Purchasing Officer
Telephone: (613) 580-2424, ext. 25833
Facsimile: (613) 560-2126
E-mail: Brian.Hum@ottawa.ca
5.
Inquiries
All inquiries in writing (e-mail) regarding this Request for Proposal (RFP) are to be directed to the Administrative Authority specified herein. Inquiries received after Thursday, 01 April 2010 may not be answered. All inquiries received, and the answers as provided by the Administrative Authority will be provided to all Proponents by way of written addendum, no later than Monday, 12 April 2010 without naming the source of the inquiry.
6.
Fairness Commissioner
In order to ensure that all activities associated with the RFP process are carried out with fairness, openness, transparency, and in compliance with this RFP, the City has retained the services of Peter Woods, Public Sector Company Limited to act as the Fairness Commissioner for this project.
7.
Commercially Confidential
Meetings
A Proponent may request a commercially confidential meeting with the
City to seek clarification on whether the property, design, goods and/or
services it may be considering proposing would meet the City’s requirements as
set out in this RFP.
All request for commercially confidential meetings are to be made to
the Administrative Authority on or before 12 March 2010.
In order to request a confidential meeting with the City in connection with this RFP, Proponents must submit the Proponent confidential meeting request form attached as Annex “D” to this RFP. This form should be submitted to the Administrative Authority via email. The City reserves the right to invite a Proponent(s) to commercially confidential meeting.
Proponent(s) will have the opportunity to designate information provided during the course of a commercially confidential meeting (e.g. questions, answers, other information) as commercially confidential.
No statement, consent, waiver, acceptance, approval or anything else said or done in any commercially confidential meeting by the City or any of its advisors, employees or representatives shall amend or waive any provision of the RFP, or be binding on the City or be relied upon in any way by Proponent(s), Proponent Team Member(s) or their advisors except when and only to the extent expressly confirmed in a written addendum to the RFP.
8.
Content and Delivery of
Proposal
A Proposal should contain the following:
1) one (1) ORIGINAL signed Technical Proposal and twelve (12) copies of the Technical Proposal;
2) one (1) electronic copy of the Technical Proposal in MS WORD format on a CD/DVD;
3) one (1) ORIGINAL signed Financial Proposal and one (1) copy of the Financial Proposal, in a separate sealed envelope;
4) one (1) electronic copy of the Financial Proposal in MS EXCEL format on a CD/DVD, in a separate sealed envelope; and
5)
one (1) ORIGINAL signed Proposal Submission & Estoppel Form attached as Annex
“E” to this RFP.
Should there be any discrepancy between the original and any copies, the “ORIGINAL” will prevail.
Both the Technical Proposal, the Financial Proposal and the Proposal Submission and Estoppel Form must be signed by a person authorized to bind the Proponent. All of the foregoing must be placed in a sealed envelope, clearly identified as to contents, and addressed to:
City of
Finance Department
Supply Branch
4th
Floor,
Attention: Brian T. Hum
Each Proposal must identify the name, address, telephone number and email address of a contact person(s) for the Proponent.
Proposals MUST be received at this location NOT
LATER THAN 3:00 P.M. LOCAL TIME, on
Thursday, 29 April 2010. (the “RFP Closing Date”)
Proposals received after the RFP Closing Date and time will not be considered, but will be returned unopened, to the Proponent.
9.
Proposal Evaluation
The City will establish an evaluation committee (the “Evaluation Committee”) for the purpose of evaluating Proposals. The City, in its sole discretion, will determine the size, structure and composition of the Evaluation Committee and any sub-committees of the Evaluation Committee. The Evaluation Committee may be assisted by and receive advice from any advisor(s), employee(s), agent(s) and/or representative(s) of the City in any manner determined necessary or desirable by the City.
The
evaluation of the proposals will be conducted as detailed below in the
following five (5) stages:
9.1 Stage
I – Compliance with Mandatory Requirements
Stage I will consist of a review to determine which Proposals comply with all of the mandatory requirements, as identified in Section 11 of this RFP. Subject to the City’s rights as outlined in Sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 of this RFP, Proposals that do not comply with all of the Mandatory Requirements will be disqualified and not evaluated further.
9.2 Stage II –
Evaluation and Scoring of Technical Proposals
Stage II will consist of an evaluation and scoring of the Technical Proposal under Section 12 of this RFP.
Proponents must achieve a minimum score of 75% (75 points out of 100 points) to proceed to Stage III, being the evaluation of the Financial Proposals. Subject to the City’s rights as outlined in Sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 of this RFP, Proposals that do not meet the minimum threshold requirement of 75%, will be disqualified and not evaluated further.
9.3 Stage III
– Evaluation of the Financial Proposals
Stage
III will consist of an evaluation of the Financial Proposals. A Proponent’s
Financial Proposal should consist of a Cash Flow Analysis, Marketing Concept,
Financing Plan and their Expectations of the City as further described in
Section 13 of this RFP.
Given
that the City would prefer to minimize its financial contribution to the
project subject to a proposal meeting its needs, the evaluation of the
financial proformas will initially be based on the net present value of the
financial contribution requirement(s) requested from the City.
Stage IV will consist of a due diligence phase to review the certainty, reasonableness and comprehensiveness of each Proponents’ Financial Proposal. The City reserves the right to seek clarification of any of the elements contained in the Proposal and to contact the people named as the project references in order to confirm the information provided. Proponents are expected to cooperate in providing clarification on any of the components of their Proposal. Proposals that fail to satisfy the due diligence phase will not be given any further consideration.
Subject to the satisfactory completion of the
reference checks and the other due diligence activities, City staff will
recommend to Committee and Council a preferred proponent based on the lowest
net present value of the financial contribution requirement(s) requested from
the City.
9.5 Stage V - Report to Committee
and Council
The Preferred Proponent will be selected based on:
- having met all of the Mandatory Requirements;
- scoring a minimum of 75% on the criteria subject to the points rating;
- having the Financial Proposal with the least cost and risk implications for the City as determined by the City’s evaluation of the Financial Proposals; and
- having successfully completed the due diligence stage.
City staff will present a recommendation to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and City Council identifying the Preferred Proponent and recommending that the City proceed with Negotiations as described in Section 10 of this RFP.
The selection of the Preferred
Proponent will be made by the City of
10. Negotiations
If the City, in its sole and absolute discretion, decides to proceed with the creation of the Exposition Hall Facility, it will then enter into negotiations with the Preferred Proponent. The City is under no obligation whatsoever to enter into negotiations with either the Preferred Proponent, or any other Proponents who responds to this RFP.
All other Proponents who meet the minimum threshold requirements set out in the RFP, including having complied with the mandatory requirements, will be notified that they may be eligible for future negotiations if negotiations with the Preferred Proponent do not result in an agreement. Those Proponents who fail to achieve the minimum threshold requirements will be notified of their ineligibility for future negotiations.
Should negotiations with the Preferred Proponent succeed, the City would enter into a contract for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of an Exposition Hall Facility. Should negotiations with the Preferred Proponent fail to result in the formalization of an agreement, the City may, in its sole and absolute discretion, enter into negotiations with the second lowest Net Present Value ranked Proponent. Should those negotiations fail, the next lowest Net Present Value ranked Proponent may be invited to participate in negotiations. This sequence could continue until either an agreement is finalized or the City decides not to proceed with the project.
11. Mandatory Requirements
|
|
|
|
Mandatory Requirements |
Pass or Fail |
Proponents must demonstrate
compliance with the following Mandatory Requirements:
·
A signed and dated Proposal Submission and Estoppel Form, Annex “E”,
must be submitted with the Proposal;
- Proposals must provide evidence of ownership
or an agreement to obtain irrevocable control of the proposed site
(registered owner on title; or purchaser under a fully executed and valid
purchase agreement or option to purchase agreement; or as a lessee under a
fully executed ground lease agreement or agreement to lease);
- Proposals must provide evidence that the proposed site is currently zoned such that a “place of assembly” on the proposed site is a permitted use under the provisions of the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 and that the proposed Exposition Hall Facility is capable of being fully developed on the proposed site in accordance with applicable performance standards under the said By-law;
- The proposed Exposition Hall facility must includes an exhibit hall space with a minimum of 150,000 sq. ft. of contiguous space;
- The proposed Exposition Hall Facility must be open for use by 01 September 2011, if possible, and no later than 01 March 2012; and
- The
proposed Exposition Hall Facility must be within the boundaries of the
City of
12. Technical Proposal Requirements
Proponents should respond to the requirements as
outlined in this Section 12, “Technical Proposal Requirements.” Proponents are
encouraged to respond to every criterion with an unambiguous, detailed response
and to structure Proposals with the same headings and in the same order as the
below requirements.
Evaluation Scoring Grid
|
|
Total Points |
|
1.
Understanding of the City’s Objectives |
20 Points |
|
2.
Project Partnering and Management Plan |
50 Points |
|
3. Site and Conceptual Building Plan |
30 Points |
|
Total Score |
100 Points |
Scoring Benchmarks
The following Scoring Benchmark will be used
in scoring the Evaluation Criteria identified below.
|
Percent of Available Points |
Description
|
|
100 |
Exceeds Expectations – all specified factors are addressed in persuasive detail |
|
87.5 |
Completely Demonstrated/Fully Met Expectations – all specified factors are fully addressed |
|
75 |
Meets Expectations – all specified factors are addressed to varying degree with some addressed minimally |
|
50 |
Less than Satisfactory – most specified factors are addressed but most addressed minimal or nominally |
|
0 |
Not Demonstrated/Unacceptable Response – No response or the response does not address any of the specified factors |
12.1
Understanding of the City’s
Objectives (20 points)
Proponents should describe their understanding of the
City’s objectives for this project as required in this RFP and further as
described in the reports to Committee, Council and Council Decisions as
outlined in Section 26, Reference Information and how those objectives will be
met through their proposed approach to the project.
12.2
Project Partnering and
Management Plan (50 points)
12.2.1 Description of the Proponent’s
Project Team – 30 points
Proponents should provide a clear description of the Proponent’s Project Team including:
i. In the event that a Project Team is made up of more than one legal entity, identify which of these entities will act as Prime, and therefore be the legal entity that enters into agreement(s) with the City for the project.
ii. A description of the companies involved in the Project Team under each functional area. The functional areas include, but may not be limited to, design, construction, financing, maintenance, and operations.
iii. A demonstration that the entity responsible for financing has undertaken and financed projects that are similar in size, type, and complexity, including at least one Exposition Hall facility;
iv. A demonstration that those members of the Project Team responsible for the design and construction of the proposed Exposition Hall Facility have undertaken projects that are similar in size, type, and complexity which indicate experience in meeting project timeframes and budgets and working with the public sector (client reference for each project to be included);
v. A demonstration that those members of the Project Team responsible for the maintenance and operations of the proposed Exposition Hall Facility have appropriate experience in facility operations, maintenance, and in operating a consumer and trade shows by listing and describing projects of similar in size, type, and complexity which have been maintained and operated by the Proponent (client reference for each project to be included);
vi. A description of the core positions and duties under each functional area as described above and the experience that each of the individuals who will be carrying out these duties has had on projects of similar scope and complexity (detailed resumes to be included); and
vii. A description of the lines of communication and authority in the provision of services by the Project Team, including a description of how the Project Team will interact and communicate with the City.
For
the purposes of allowing the City to conduct due diligence as described in
Stage IV, references must include name, title, organization, phone number and
e-mail address.
12.2.2 Project Schedule – 5 points
Proponents should provide a project schedule that illustrates all milestones, and demonstrates and accounts appropriately for the different activities needed to implement the facility (e.g. required approvals, consultations, design, construction, commissioning, start of operations, etc.) (a “Project Schedule”). The proposed Project Schedule must provide for the new Exposition Hall facility to be open for use by 01 September 2011, if possible, and no later than 01 March 2012 as outlined in Section 11, Mandatory Requirements.
Proponents should describe the major risks which
might jeopardize the achievement of the milestones identified in the Project
Schedule and explain how these will be mitigated.
12.2.3 Business Plan for Trade and Consumer
Show Operations – 10 points
Proponents should provide a business plan for trade and consumer show operations that is reasonable and well-researched and provides appropriate mitigation strategies for risks. Through this business plan, Proponents should demonstrate detailed knowledge of trade and consumer show operations. In addition, the business plan should outline strategies and objectives for maintaining and growing the trade and consumer show business for the proposed Exhibition Hall facility.
12.2.4 Facility Operations and Maintenance
Plan – 5 points
Proponents should submit an Operations and Maintenance Plan providing for the operation and appropriate maintenance for the whole of the Exhibition Hall facility (e.g. accounting for all operating and maintenance costs, all estimates are appropriate, life cycle event costs are identified, provision is made for adequate capital reserves etc…)
12.3 Site and Conceptual Building
12.3.1
Conceptual Site Plan – 10 points
Proponents should provide a conceptual site plan illustrating the location of the proposed Exposition Hall building and any other buildings on the site, parking and loading facilities, vehicular access, and landscaped and other open spaces.
12.3.2
Site Plan Approval – 10 points
Proponents should provide a preliminary planning approvals analysis that:
i. Demonstrates that a “place of assembly” is a permitted use on the proposed site under the provisions of the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2008-250;
ii. Sets out the provisions of the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2008-250 that apply to the proposed site, including parking provisions, and demonstrates that a conceptual site plan submitted by the Proponent pursuant to Section 12.3.1 above would conform to all applicable performance standards contained in the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2008-250;
iii. Describes the planning approval requirements for the project and sets out the proposed work plan and timelines to obtain the necessary approvals;
iv. Provides a preliminary transportation analysis that takes into account:
· The location and convenience of the site
relative to an arterial road, a 400 series Highway, and public transit routes
and a comparison of these characteristics to the current Lansdowne Park
location.
· The performance/capacity of the existing transportation system;
· The impact of neighboring development needs;
· The extent and impact of traffic from the proposed development on the site;
· The availability, convenience and projected use of public transit for the proposed site;
· An assessment of traffic circulation for all modes of travel and associated site design and operational requirements including the requirements to accommodate large service vehicles; and
· Identification of mitigation measures to effectively and practically deals with any identified transportation concerns.
v. Provides a preliminary servicing analysis to demonstrate that there are existing and adequate municipal services/utilities at the limits of the site, or in the alternative, demonstrates that these services/utilities are located within reasonable proximity of the proposed site so that any necessary service extensions can be constructed in a timely and cost effective manner to meet the overall time frames for completing a new Exposition Hall Facility.
12.3.3 Conceptual Building
Plan – 10 points
Proponents should provide a conceptual building plan/program that includes:
i. A description of the proposed building components and associated specifications in relation to the specifications set out in the attached Annex “A”;
ii. A conceptual building plan for the proposed Exposition Hall Facility showing the size and functional layout, including column grid if any, and of the building and its components and which plan provides for an exhibit hall with an area of no less than 150,000 sq. ft. of contiguous space, and;
iii. A drawing showing the elevation of the main facade of the building and of any other facades visible from a public right-of-way together with a description of the proposed materials to be used on the facade.
13. Financial Proposal
13.1 Cash Flow Analysis
The Proponent should provide a 30-year Cash Flow Analysis in Microsoft Excel Format. The Cash Flow Analysis should meet the requirements below and should allow the Evaluator access to all internal formulas, data and assumptions together with a full print-out of all model sheets.
The Cash Flow Analysis should show details of the sources and uses of funds in nominal terms, including debt and equity injection and repayments, gross revenues, required annual contributions from the City as may be deemed necessary by the Proponent, interest payments, financing costs, dividends, other fees and costs, design costs, construction costs, lifecycle costs, operating and maintenance costs, and the internal rate of return on a pre-tax and post-tax basis.
Other requirements of the Cash Flow Analysis include:
- Base Date: the base date to be used in developed the Financial Model is September 2010.
- Duration of the Project: the Cash Flow Analysis should be provided on an annual basis for 30 years.
- Currency: all values should be provided in Canadian dollars.
- Tax: the Proponent must provide details of its taxation assumptions.
The Financial Proposal will be reviewed and analyzed based on the following:
- The certainty, reasonableness and comprehensiveness of the Financial Plan and Cash Flow Analysis from a business perspective; and
- The cost implications to the City based on an assessment by the City of the following:
- the timing and nature of the financial contribution(s) requested of the City;
- the Net Present Value (NPV) of the financial contribution(s) requested of the City from a City financing perspective as may be determined by the City in its sole and absolute discretion;
- the nature of any other required contribution(s) requested of the City; and
- the nature of any conditions or guarantees and the associated risk(s) to the City as determined by the City in its sole and absolute discretion.
In order to
assist the City in evaluating the economic impacts relative to submissions
received through this RFP, respondents are requested, in their Financial
Proposal information to identify estimates of:
·
Stabilized
number of trade and consumer show events;
·
Stabilized
average number of exhibitors and attendees at each event; and
·
Number of
events where the expected proportion of out-of town exhibit and/or attendees is
greater than 15%.
13.2 Marketing Concept (Framework)
The marketing concept is to reflect the Proponent’s short-term marketing strategy for the on-going promotion of the proposed services, it should be forward looking. The proposal should describe the proposed marketing concept and include:
· A five year outline of the proposed marketing concept;
· An analysis of market trends; and
· Any other marketing ideas.
13.3 Financing
Plan
The Proponent is to demonstrate that it has or has access to the necessary financing to enable it to build and operate the facility. The Proponent is to include:
· A description of the initial construction project financing structure, as well as long-term financing required, identifying the percentage of equity that it (or any part of its joint venture or consortium (if applicable)) will provide, level of debt, sources of debt financing and anticipated interest rates.
· Any financing arrangement to enable the ongoing cash management requirements.
· Confirmation from an acceptable surety that the Private sector partner can obtain, and will provide a Performance Security when requested to do so.
· Confirmation from an Insurer that insurance coverage is available for the facility.
· Letters of confirmation from banks or recognized financial institutions, that the financing plan, as shown in the five year pro forma, has the support of, and has undergone the scrutiny of, the financing entity.
13.4 Proponent’s
Financial Expectations of the City
The City will be evaluating and quantifying the suggested contribution as part of the competitive process, these suggestions will be evaluated to determine the best value for the City. The Proponent will clearly list any participation that it expects from the City and provide an estimate of the opportunity cost related to the City providing such contribution.
The proposal is to identify any subsidies or other contributions requested from the City including but not limited to:
· The amount and terms of the requested contribution.
· In-kind contributions, such as land, capital, operating, etc.
· Requested exemptions from municipal taxation or development charges, etc.
· Any other financial support requested from the City guarantees of debt, or similar indemnification of lease, etc.
· An analysis supporting the request for contributions.
· An assessment of the value to the City.
14. Costs and Expenses of the Proponent
All costs and expenses incurred by each Proponent in the preparation and delivery of its Proposal, or in providing any additional information necessary, or for attending at any clarification meetings, shall be borne solely by that Proponent. The City shall not incur any obligation whatsoever toward the Proponent theretofore, whether the Proposal is reviewed or not by the City.
Neither the City nor its representatives will be liable to pay any costs or expenses of any Proponent or prospective Proponent or to reimburse or compensate a Proponent or prospective Proponent in any manner whatsoever under any circumstances, including in the event of the City not proceeding with the Project or any related RFP Process or this RFP Process.
15. Limitation of Liability
Notwithstanding any other provision in this RFP and/or any applicable statutory provisions, the City shall not be liable to any Proponent for any claim for damages arising either directly or indirectly from any breach of this RFP, fundamental or otherwise, or from any acts or omissions by the City or any of its employees. Without limiting the foregoing, the City shall not be liable to any Proponent for any claim relating to, or resulting from, the exercise of the City’s discretion and/or rights under this RFP.
16. Prohibition against
Lobbying
Neither the Proponents nor their representatives shall engage in any form of lobbying in relation to this RFP process. For the purposes of this RFP, the term “lobbying” shall include any direct or indirect communication with any member of City Council or their staff, any expert or advisor retained by the City, or any City employee other than the Administrative Authority, with respect to the Exposition Hall Facility and/or this RFP.
In the event that a Proponent or their representative(s) contravenes this provision prior to the RFP Closing Date, the Proponent may be immediately disqualified from the RFP process. Any Proposal they submit may be returned to the Proponent and may not be considered. In the event that a Proponent or their representative(s) contravenes this provision after bid closing, they may be immediately disqualified and their Proposal will not be considered further.
17. Restriction on Communications
Neither the Proponents nor their representatives shall make any public comment, respond to questions in a public forum and/or carry out any activities to publicly promote or advertise their Proposal or their interest or participation in this RFP Process, without the prior written consent of the City. The City reserves the right to withhold such written consent in its sole and absolute discretion.
In the event that a Proponent or their representatives communicates, either directly or indirectly, with any other Proponent with respect to this RFP process and/or any aspect of their respective Proposals, the Proponent will, within forty-eight (48) hours, notify and advise the Administrative Authority about the existence, purpose, nature, content and details of those communications.
18. Conflict of Interest
In connection with its Proposal, each Proponent shall:
- avoid any Conflict of Interest in relation to the Project;
- disclose to the City without delay any real or apparent or potential Conflict of Interest that arises during the RFP Process; and
- comply with any requirements prescribed by the City to resolve any Conflict of Interest.
If the City believes a conflict of interest exists, it will notify the Proponent(s) involved and provide them with an opportunity to respond and/or explain.
In addition to all contractual or other rights or rights available at law or in equity or legislation, the City may, in the City’s sole discretion, exclude a Proponent from this or any future RFP Process if the Proponent fails to disclose a real or potential or perceived Conflict of Interest or the Proponent’s Conflict of Interest issue cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the City.
19. Conditions
This RFP Process is not an
offer to enter into an agreement with any party but rather a request to receive
Proposals from Proponents interested in undertaking the design, construction,
operation, finance and maintenance of an Exposition Hall Facility outlined
herein. Such Proposals will be treated by the City as
offers to enter into negotiations. The
City reserves the right to reject all Proposals, in whole or in part, and/or to
enter into negotiations with any party or parties to provide such products
and/or services to the City.
This RFP Process is not intended
to create a binding contract (often referred to as “Contract A”). This RFP
Process and any subsequent agreements related to the subject matter hereof will
be governed according to the laws of the
20. City’s Discretion in Determining Compliance, Scoring and Ranking
The City shall, in its sole and absolute discretion, determine:
- whether a Proposal is in material compliance with the requirements of the RFP;
- whether to waive any informality or irregularity;
- the ranking of the Proposals; and
- whether a Proposal or a Proponent is disqualified or will cease to be considered in the evaluation process.
21. Disqualification
The City may, in its sole discretion, disqualify a Proponent or reverse its decision to enter into negotiations at any time prior to execution of an agreement with the Preferred Proponent if:
- the Proponent is determined to be non-compliant with any mandatory requirement of this RFP;
- the Proponent fails to cooperate in any attempt by the City to verify any information provided by the Proponent;
- the Proponent fails to cooperate with the City in its performance of due diligence;
- the Proponent fails to comply with applicable federal and provincial laws and regulations and applicable municipal by-laws;
- the Proposal contains false or misleading information or a misrepresentation;
- the Proposal, in the opinion of the City, reveals a Conflict of Interest;
- the Proponent has committed a material breach of any existing agreement between the Proponent and the City, any agency of the City or another municipality; or
- the Proponent has been convicted of an offence in connection with any services rendered to the City, any agency the City or any other municipality.
22. Rights Reserved
The City has the right, at any time, in its discretion, and without incurring any liability for costs or damages, to:
· alter the dates, schedules, deadlines, processes and requirements described in this RFP Process;
· to alter the limits, scope and details of the Exhibition Hall facility project based on a review of the Proposal(s);
· to initiate a new process or pursue any other process or solution, including but not limited to issuing an RFP Process, obtaining, on its own initiative, land or property for the purpose of constructing an exhibition hall facility and, with or without inviting respondents to this RFP Process, to participate in any such other process or solution;
·
to cancel this RFP Process at any time before
the execution of an agreement with a Proponent; and
· to elect not to proceed with the Project for any reason whatsoever.
The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all Proposals received, should it be deemed in the best interest of the City.
Should
only one Proposal be received, the City reserves the right to reject it. If the Proposal(s) amounts exceed the
approved funds that are available, the Administrative Authority retains the
absolute right to reject the Proposal(s).
23. Requests for Clarification
At any time during the evaluation of Proposals, the City may request that any Proponent provide clarification of any part of its Proposal. The review of a Proposal will include any clarifications, provided in writing, in response to questions posed by the City, as well as any other investigations performed by the City.
The City will have the right to verify any information received, and, for that purpose, the Proponents shall be deemed to consent to and authorize the release of such information to the City. If required, it may be necessary for a Proponent to attend one or more clarification meetings with the City.
The City is under no obligation to request clarification with respect to, or verify, any information in any Proposal, including the clarification or verification of any ambiguity in the Proposal. The City may, at its discretion, request clarification with respect to, or verify, matters related to none, one or some of the Proposals.
Any written information received by the City from a Proponent pursuant to a request for clarification or verification from the City may, in the City’s sole discretion, be considered as an integral part of the applicable Proposal.
It is the responsibility of the Proponent to obtain clarification of the requirements contained herein, if necessary, prior to submitting a Proposal.
24. Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
The City of Ottawa is subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.56, as amended (“MFIPPA”) with respect to, and protection of, information under its custody and control. Accordingly, all documents provided to the City in response to this Request for Proposal may be available to the public unless the party submitting the information requests that it be treated as confidential.
All information is subject to MFIPPA and may be subject to release under the Act, notwithstanding your request to keep the information confidential.
25. Notes to Proponent
It is essential that the elements of a Proposal be stated in a clear and concise manner. Failure to provide complete information as requested will be to the Proponent’s disadvantage.
Proposals should be submitted in the format requested, with an index and preferably including the criteria subject to point rating in a clear identifiable location.
At any time prior to the RFP Closing Date, a Proponent may withdraw and amend its Proposal. A Proponent wishing to amend its Proposal shall withdraw the initial Proposal and replace it with a complete, revised Proposal prior to the RFP Closing Date.
Proposals will not be returned to the Proponents unless withdrawn prior to the RFP Closing Date.
The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received or to cancel the RFP in its entirety, all without any right of recourse on the part of any Proponent, and to seek clarification from one or more Proponents on the contents of their proposal submission.
The Administrative Authority will only make official modifications to the RFP, or to the specifications as described in the attached Annex “A” to this RFP, through written addenda. Any oral statement or other representation from any source should not be accepted as binding, unless confirmed through an official written addendum.
Copies of this Request for Proposal are available from the MERX Distribution Unit, telephone 1-800-964-6379 or via the Internet at www.merx.com. MERX is the official and sole distributor of this Request for Proposal and any addenda. If a Proponent obtains this document by means other than through MERX, the accuracy of the document and receipt of any addenda are the sole responsibility of the Proponent.
The City relies on the electronic MERX advertisement to provide public notice of this business opportunity and is not obligated to notify past or present suppliers in any other manner.
Each Proposal will be evaluated solely on its content. Assessment of the Proposal commences immediately after closing date.
The City does not accept Proposals submitted by facsimile transfer machines or electronic mail.
The Proponent is advised that all communications with the City related to this RFP during the bidding process must be made directly and only with the Administrative Authority.
26. Reference Information
Report to Committee
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/csedc/2010/02-02/05%20-%20ACS2010-CMR-REP-0009%20Exposition%20Hall%20RFP.htm
Report to Council
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2010/02-10/csedc/04%20-%20ACS2010-CMR-REP-0009%20Exposition%20Hall%20RFP.htm
Decision by Council
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2010/02-10/englishdisposition84.htm