Request for Proposal 7021/7022 Date of Issue: January 16, 2018

Transcription

1 Request for Proposal 7021/7022 Date of Issue: January 16, 2018 CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE TOWN OF CANMORE STEEP CREEK HAZARD AND RISK ASSESSMENT ECHO CANYON CREEK AND XYZ CREEKS (THIS IS NOT AN ORDER) SUMMARY The Town of Canmore (the Town) has been impacted by flooding on a number of steep creeks in recent years. These creeks produce debris floods and debris flows that discharge on developed alluvial fans throughout the community. The Town seeks to continue to develop our understanding of the hazards and risks associated with these steep creeks and to identify strategies to mitigate risks. In response to the debris floods and debris flows of 2013, forensic analysis was undertaken for all creeks in Canmore. This forensic analysis informed the completion of hazard and risk assessment on a number of high priority creeks including Cougar Creek, Three Sisters Creek, Pigeon Creek, Stoneworks Creek and Stone Creek. The Town is seeking a qualified firm to undertake detailed hazard and risk assessment for two additional areas of potential risk: X, Y, Z Creeks and Echo Canyon Creek. Assessment is to be undertaken to a similar standard as recently completed creeks. File Number: RFP #7021/7022 Note: Submissions will NOT be opened publicly Closing Time: 14:00 Mountain Time Closing Date: February 15, 2018 It is the Proponent s responsibility to request clarification of any item that is unclear or uncertain within the content of the Proposal package before closing time, by contacting: Proposal Contact: Phone: Fax: Felix Camire fcamire@canmore.ca Proposals are to be addressed to the attention of: Felix Camire, Project Engineer Town of Canmore th Avenue Canmore, Alberta T1W 3K1 Any Addenda will be posted to Alberta Purchasing Connection (APC) and

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF PROPOSAL General Intention of Award Length of Agreement Project Process after Proposal Evaluation Professional Services Terms and Conditions Insurance Requirements Staff Changes PROJECT INFORMATION Project Overview Performance Expectations SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS General Requirements Title Page Letter of Introduction Table of Contents PROPOSAL EVALUATION Evaluation and Selection Confidentiality of Evaluation Compliance Evaluation Matrix... 3 SIGNATURE AND WAIVER SHEET... 7 APPENDICES... 9 Page 1

3 1.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSAL Each Proponent should submit one (1) hard copy of their Proposal along with one (1) electronic copy submitted on memory stick in PDF format. In the case of discrepancies the hard copy will prevail..1 The proposal must be written in English..2 Proposal Format a. To facilitate ease of evaluation by the Evaluation Team, and to ensure each Proposal receives full consideration, Proposals should be organized in the following format using the section titles and sequence listed below: Proposal Submission Letter Table of Contents Proposal Requirements.3 Proposals are to be a maximum of 20 pages, including all project team CVs. Any promotional material may be included as appendices but will not be used directly for evaluations..4 Each Proponent is solely responsible for ensuring that its submission is received at or before the stated closing time in the RFP package. Receipt of each submission will be confirmed by the Town. The Town is not responsible for any submission received or time stamped after the stated closing time, and will not consider any such submission..5 Proponents are responsible for all costs associated with the preparation and submission of proposals..6 Failure to address envelopes exactly as indicated may result in delayed delivery and rejection of the submission. Any submission not received at the location specified on the label by the closing date and time shown below will be returned and will not be considered..7 Questions And Clarifications.6.1 All requests for clarification and questions regarding this RFP should be submitted in writing via to fcamire@canmore.ca. All questions or clarification requests should be specific to this RFP and should include references to a specific section and item number..6.2 It is further requested that all clarification and questions requests be received no later than seventy-two (72) hours prior to close. Although every attempt will be made, the Town cannot guarantee that questions received beyond this time period will be answered prior to the RFP closing time..6.3 Responses will be returned via addenda posted to APC should the information be applicable to all Proponents..6.4 Addenda may be issued during the proposal period. All addenda will become part of the agreement and must be included in the Proponents proposal submission. It is the Proponents sole responsibility to review the electronic postings on APC or at for any addenda related to this RFP. Page 2

4 To ensure your submission is considered affix the label below. If you are placing your submission in an additional envelope for shipping, the label should be on the OUTSIDE ENVELOPE Attention: Felix Camire, Project Engineer Town of Canmore th Avenue Canmore, Alberta T1W 3K1 CLOSING DATE Project RFP #7021/7022 February 15, 2018 NAME OF BUSINESS ENTITY (SENT FROM) CLOSING TIME 14:00 Mountain Standard Time BUSINESS ENTITY CONTACT Page 3

5 2.0 SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF PROPOSAL 2.1 General The Special Conditions of Proposal are supplementary to the Instructions for Submitting Proposal, and form an integral part of the Agreement. Where items covered by these Special Conditions of Proposal are in conflict with items described elsewhere in the Agreement, or Instructions for Submitting Proposal referred to, the Special Conditions of Proposal contained herein will govern. The following documents have been incorporated by reference into the Request for Proposal: a. Master Consulting Agreement; b. Affidavit of Execution; and c. Affidavit of Corporate Signing Authority. To view the referenced documents visit The Town s website, under the Engineering heading ( 2.2 Intention of Award.1 The Town reserves the right to award the projects in whole or in part or to delete any portion of the projects or to increase the scope of projects as may be in the interest of The Town. 2.3 Length of Agreement.1 The length of the agreement is to be the full duration of the project. The Town reserves the right to extend this term to complete any in-progress projects..2 Additional award periods will be based on mutual agreement between The Town and the Successful Proponent. However, The Town reserves the right to negotiate various changes to the Agreement to reflect current conditions at the time of renewal. 2.4 Project Process after Proposal Evaluation.1 The Successful Proponent will be chosen based on the evaluated ranking..2 The Successful Proponent and the Town might negotiate the proposed fees. If successfully negotiated, The Town will issue a Letter of Award..3 If an agreement cannot be successfully negotiated within a reasonable timeframe, the Town reserves the right to terminate negotiations and engage another Proponent. 2.5 Professional Services Terms and Conditions.1 Agreements consist of any number of the following documents including all amendments incorporated in the documents before their execution and subsequent amendments made pursuant to the provisions of the Agreements: a. Master Consulting Agreement b. Request for Proposal c. Addenda d. Letter to Successful Proponent e. Statement of Scope f. Technical & Fee Proposal g. Letter of Award Page 4

6 .2 The Town of Canmore Master Consulting Agreement (MCA) sets out the terms and conditions of consulting services. Firms who have not executed a MCA will be required to do so, prior to any award..3 Any inconsistent or conflicting provisions contained within the documents forming the Agreement shall be resolved in the following order: a. Letter of Award b. Statement of Scope c. Technical & Fee Proposal d. Addenda e. Request for Proposal f. Master Consulting Agreement 2.6. Insurance Requirements.1 Insurance requirements are outlined in the Master Consulting Agreement section Staff Changes.1 Staff changes by the successful Proponents will require written approval from The Town prior to any such change, which approval The Town may withhold in its sole discretion. The qualifications and experience of the proposed staff change must be equivalent to or better than the staff proposed on the proposal received. The Town reserves the right, in addition and without prejudice to any other right or remedy, to immediately terminate the Agreement as a result of the failure by the Successful Proponent to provide the staff proposed. Page 5

7 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Project Overview Introduction The Town of Canmore is situated in the Front Range of the Canadian Rockies in the Province of Alberta. The local mountains consist of sedimentary rock largely limestone. The Bow River flows through the community along the valley bottom and is partially fed by a number steep creeks within the municipality. The Town has been significantly impacted by recent steep creek flooding. These steep creeks generate debris flows and debris floods contributing to the formation of alluvial fans generating significant hazard (see forensic reports in Appendix B). In the absence of a clear understanding of the hazards posed by these steep creeks, fan areas have seen varying extents of development. This development has resulted in significant risk to the community, much of which has only recently come to light. The floods of June 2012 and June 2013 resulted in significant damage to infrastructure and private property, in addition to putting emergency personnel and the public at risk. Although the Bow River and ground water are both flood hazards that caused important issues, flooding of steep creeks resulted in the greatest damage. Following the flood events of 2013, Canmore s town council approved the initiation of the Mountain Creek Hazard Mitigation Program in July of This program has been established to better understand the hazards and risks associated with steep creeks in order to inform decision making around structural mitigation, emergency response, and policy. As a first step in the program, forensic analysis was undertaken for all creeks in Canmore. This forensic analysis informed the completion of hazard and risk assessment on a number of high priority creeks, including Cougar Creek, Three Sisters Creek, Pigeon Creek, Stoneworks Creek and Stone Creek. All currently available reports are found in Appendix A of this RFP. The Town now seeks to complete the hazard and risk assessments of X, Y, Z Creeks and Echo Canyon Creek Project Objectives 1. Identify hazards and risks associated with debris flood and debris flows of Canmore s steep creeks. 2. Identify strategies for mitigating hazards and managing risks where required. 3. Inform the community of hazards, risks, and risk reduction options where required Page 6

8 3.1.3 RFP and Project Schedules RFP Issue Date: January 16, 2018 RFP Closing Date: February 15, 2018 Project award: Early March Project completion: August Project Schedule: Proponent schedule is to reflect a first draft of the assessment to be submitted by June 1, The overall project completion will be subject to the extent of review required, however the project must be complete by November 30 th, Two reviews are expected, and three weeks are to be provided for each review. Further, a period of engagement is to be included in the schedule between reviews. This engagement period is to be scheduled for one month. The Town may consider alternative schedules provided that overall program goals and objectives are met including full completion by November 30 th Project Scope The Town of Canmore has adopted guidelines for the hazard and risk assessments of steep creeks. Each assessment requires a level of effort that is commensurate with the severity of consequences that could result from a steep creek hazard event. Table 2 describes the four different levels of study that have been adopted by the Town. The hazard and risk assessments of X, Y, Z Creeks (creeks above Peaks of Grassi) and Echo Canyon Creek both require Level 3 studies. The fan extent and location of those two creeks are found in Figure 1 of Appendix B. Typical work plan for such studies is described in Table 1below. The deliverables associated to each task are also described. The complete scope of work for Level 3 studies is described in Table 2. Page 7

9 Request for Proposal 7021/7022 Date of Issue: January 16, 2018 Table 1 Typical Project Work Plan Task 1. Project Management and Steering Committee Meetings 2. Desktop Study 3. Field Work 4. Hazard and Risk Analyses 5. Evaluation of Mitigation Options Work Items and Deliverables Initial Steering Committee meeting Review debris flow/debris flood risk tolerance criteria as per Town of Canmore policy Discuss practical limitations to risk reduction based on level of existing development and past experience with decisions by the provincial and local government to fund design and construction of structural risk reduction measures Interim Steering Committee meeting Project management and administration Review existing reports, geology, terrain, landslide, and hydrologic information Compile remotely-sensed (LiDAR, Airphoto) and basemap data in GIS format Physical and visual assessment of the channel and fan by a site walkthrough which may include but not be limited to: o Test pitting o Dendrochronology o Inspection of elements at risk o Inspection of existing protective works Analysis work to determine debris flow frequencies and magnitudes Numerical modelling of debris-flow runout Quantitative and semi-quantitative risk analysis based on results of field work and hazard analysis Describe and evaluate structural and non-structural risk reduction options Perform option analysis Describe methods and results of risk assessment including comparison of risk results to tolerance thresholds 6. Draft and Final Reports 7. Public Presentation and Engagement Provide maps showing identified hazards, elements at risk, and the location of existing and proposed risk reduction measures Recommend further work required for preliminary and detailed design of risk reduction measures Provide draft assessments for review Provide final assessments. Preparation of materials for web content, open houses, etc. Presentation of results to Council Presentation of results to stakeholders at an open house

10 Request for Proposal 7021/7022 Date of Issue: January 16, 2018 Table 2 Levels of effort for steep creek studies. Level Hazard Assessment Elements Risk Analysis Elements Hazard Assessment Deliverables Risk Analysis Deliverables Typical Applications Typical Geohazard Scenario Return Periods Assessed (Years) 1 Site visit and qualitative assessment of hazard Review of historical air photographs and/or high resolution satellite images where appropriate Identify any very low or no-hazard surfaces in the consultation area (i.e., inactive fan surfaces) Identify existing risk control measures Consider past and future watershed scale environmental/land use/climate changes Qualitative, overview level assessment of elements at risk and potential consequences Letter report or memorandum with expected debris flood/debris flow stage levels, approximate flow velocities, and expected bank or bed erosion Loading conditions (where appropriate) Memorandum or letter describing methods and results Sketch maps showing hazard extent in relation to elements at risk Recommendation for further study No credible potential for loss of life due to geohazard impact; and Very small proposed development or renovation (approx., 1-2 units, <$5 M value) 2 Qualitative development of geohazard risk scenarios As for Level 1, and Qualitative description of process potential, preliminary estimates of process magnitude and frequency, mapping of hazard zones based on field evidence Frequency-magnitude analysis based on readily available information (e.g., recorded events, historic remote-sensed imagery) Characterize existing risk control measures Identification of potential secondary effects of steep creek geohazards (e.g., bank erosion) where applicable As for Level 1, and Systematic inventory and characterization of elements at risk Mapping of the location of elements at risk in relation to hazard scenario extents and estimated intensities Qualitative estimation of the vulnerability of elements at risk and potential consequences for each hazard scenario As for Level 1 but in report form and with maps showing hazard zones Report Methods description and results Qualitative summary of consequences Maps showing hazard extent and intensity in relation to elements at risk Credible potential for loss of life due to geohazard impact; and/or Small proposed development (approx., 3 to 10 units, < $10 M value) < Qualitative development of geohazard risk scenarios 3 As for Level 2, and Qualitative failure mode assessment, Detailed frequency-magnitude analysis Numerical runout modelling and inundation mapping Quantify climate change effects on primary and secondary hazards according to best practices Analysis of potential secondary effects of steep creek geohazards (e.g., bank erosion) where applicable As for Level 2, and Semi-quantitative (e.g., via risk matrices) analysis of Key Risks. Qualitative description of additional risks existing but not systematically estimated As for Level 2 and Composite hazard maps Hazard intensity maps for different hazard scenarios and return periods Delineation of areas prone to bank erosion and river/creek bed elevation changes As for Level 2, and Semi-quantitative estimates of risk in metrics agreed upon at the outset of the study (e.g., safety, economic, environment, intangibles) Maps showing spatial distribution of risk as applicable High potential for loss of life due to geohazard impact; and/or Moderate proposed development (approx units, < $50 M value) < to to to 1000 >1000 where applicable Semi-quantitative or quantitative development of geohazard risk scenarios 4 As for Level 3, and Qualitative or quantitative failure mode assessment Formulation of credible hazard scenarios and assigning of hazard scenario probabilities Possible comparison of numerical models to achieve higher confidence Detailed examination of climate change and land use effects Similar to Level 3 but with fully quantitative methods Estimates of individual and group safety risk and economic loss Quantitative estimates of damage costs for different hazard scenarios Evaluation of life loss risk in comparison to tolerance criteria As for Level 3 and Frequency-magnitude graphs with detailed error quantification Detailed method descriptions Quantitative estimates of safety risk to individuals and groups Quantitative estimates of direct economic risk (e.g., annualized damage costs) Maps showing spatial distribution of risks as applicable (e.g., damage costs, zones where individual safety risk exceeds risk tolerance thresholds) High potential for loss of life due to geohazard impact; and/or Large proposed development (typically > 100 units, > $50 M value) < to to to to 3000 >3000 where applicable Note: *if a hazard is identified during the course of the study with return periods likely exceeding those as reported in this table they need to be discussed and quantified where feasible.

11 Request for Proposal 7021/7022 Date of Issue: January 16, Out of Scope Detailed design of infrastructure is not included in the scope of this RFP. Further, it is anticipated that the successful Proponent s involvement in mitigation strategies will only be advisory Project Team Structure Town of Canmore: Owner The Town of Canmore will manage the delivery of the project including scope, schedule, quality etc. AEP River Forecasting: Observer AEP is an external stakeholder that will act as an observer. AEP might provide comments through the review process. Minimal engagement is expected with AEP through the assessment process. Independent Review Drafts of hazard and risk reports will be reviewed by third parties selected by the Town. The review will be facilitated and paid for by the Town. The successful Proponent will address feedback through revisions to the reports, or by responding to feedback in writing to the satisfaction of the reviewer and the Town, or both. 3.2 Performance Expectations Performance expectations for the work are established in Table 3.2 below. The successful Proponent s performance will be evaluated from time to time on each assignment and on an annual basis as a minimum. In the case where performance does not meet expectations performance evaluation will be used as the basis for corrective action up to and including denying eligibility for future assignments with the Town. Any evaluation will be shared with the Successful Proponent, with the goal of immediate and permanent resolution where concerns have been raised. The Town of Canmore reserves the right, in addition and without prejudice to any other right or remedy, to terminate the contract of a given successful Proponent if it is deemed that remedies cannot be established.

12 Table 3.2 Proponent Performance Expectations Scope Budget Quality Value Added Services Communication Risk Management Regulatory Compliance Schedule Construction Contract Administration Project Close-out Accurately and realistically defines scope and fees, schedules, and construction costs. Effectively manages own forces to a fixed budget, proactively manages scope change, minimizes scope change requests, and does not exceed authorized budget amounts. Ability to deliver high quality engineering services including accurate and complete tender documents, comprehensive reports with actionable recommendations, and produces effective public communication plans. Ability to offer value added services, to innovate and provide novel solutions, thus saving time and cost, and minimizing negative impacts to the community while providing high value infrastructure solutions. Effectively communicates with various entities including The Town, contractors and consultants hired by The Town, the community, and other levels of government. Identifies project risks early, assists with the development of mitigation strategies, and takes steps throughout the project to manage risk in order to minimize or avoid project delays, extra costs, and negative impacts to the community. Understands the regulatory framework and requirements for a project, identifies steps needed to meet requirements early and proactively pursues compliance in order to avoid project delays, extra costs and negative impacts to the community. Meets schedule commitments, submits deliverables on or before target dates to the expected level of completeness. Effectively administers construction contracts including proactively dealing with change, ensuring quality construction in accordance with contract documents, and actively managing contractor performance to maximize probabilities of on-time, onbudget construction completion in accordance with drawings and plans including all deficiencies. Project Closeout: Effectively and efficiently closes-out contracts, provides record drawings within a reasonable timeframe after construction completion. Page 1

13 4.0 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 4.1 General Requirements.1 Proponents are invited to submit a written Proposal of not more than twenty (20) pages for the main body of the proposal which shall include; Project Understanding, History and Stability of the Firm, Project Team, Past Projects and Performance, and Hourly Rates..2 Attach any additional information, such as company brochures, a list of previous projects undertaken by the firm, in an appendix. These attachments will not be considered in the number of pages for the main body..3 The title page, letter of introduction, table of contents, fee detail sheet, appendices, organizational charts and personnel resumes will not be considered in the number of pages..4 Proposals should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise description of the Proponent s capabilities for satisfying the requirements of this RFP. Emphasis should be on completeness and clarity of content..5 The Town is looking for evidence that your firm has the experience, expertise, and capabilities to successfully complete the scope of work outline in this RFP. Any relevant information that you provide to demonstrate this should be included in the main body of the proposal..6 Proponents should use the Evaluation Criteria, as listed in Section 5.6 of this RFP, as sections in the body of their proposal. 4.2 Title Page Submit the following information on the title page:.1 RFP name;.2 Submission closing date and time;.3 Proponent s complete corporate name and address;.4 Telephone number, facsimile number and address;.5 Name of the principal contact person. 4.3 Letter of Introduction.1 One page, introducing the firm and the proposal, signed by the person(s) authorized to sign on behalf of, and bind the firm to, statements made in the proposal. The introduction should be an overview of the proposal and reflect the Proponent understanding of the project;.2 The letter of introduction must also include a statement identifying if any potential Conflict of Interest issues may arise through the performance of this contract. 4.4 Table of Contents.1 List all relevant sections / headings and include page numbers for each. 5.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION 5.1 Evaluation and Selection The evaluation committee will ensure compliance with mandatory criteria, and evaluate and numerically score each compliant Proposal. Proposals will be evaluated and scored against selection criteria as outlined in section 4.4. The successful Proponent will be established according to evaluated ranking. Proponents will Page 2

14 be notified by letter if they have been identified as a successful Proponent that may receive Assignments under the terms of the Agreement. 5.2 Confidentiality of Evaluation Evaluation scores and rankings are confidential, and apart from identifying the top-ranked Proponent no details of the proposal or score or ranking of any Proponent will be released to any Proponent. A debrief will be provided to unsuccessful Proponents upon request. 5.3 Compliance A Proposal will first be reviewed for compliance with the criteria of this RFP. A Proposal not complying with the criteria may be considered non-compliant and not receive further consideration. The criteria for this RFP are: Received by The Town prior to the closing time and date as per the Instructions for Submitting Proposal; Executed Signature and Waiver Sheet; and Signed addendum (addenda) if applicable. 5.4 Evaluation Matrix The Town will evaluate the proposals on the basis of project understanding and methodology, qualifications of the Proponent, past performance, and price. The following evaluation matrix will be used in establishing Proponent scores: Ref Criteria Weight Rating Score Project Understanding and 20 /200 Methodology History and Stability of the Firm 15 / Experience and Expertise Project Team 25 / Past Projects and Performance 25 / Fee Estimates & Hourly Rates 15 /150 Page 3

15 5.5 Ratings.1 Proposals will be evaluated and ranked according to the outline below. The evaluation will be based on a 0 to 10 scale. Rating Description Exceeds expectations; Proponent clearly understands the requirement, excellent probability of success. Somewhat exceeds expectations; Proponent has a very good understanding of the requirement, very good probability of success. Meets expectations; Proponent has good understanding of requirement, good probability of success. Somewhat meets expectations; minor weakness or deficiencies, Proponent understands the requirement, fair probability of success. Does not meet expectations or demonstrate understanding of the requirements, low probability of success. Lack of response or complete misunderstanding of the requirements, no probability of success..2 The score of each criterion will be determined by multiplying the criteria weight by the rating. The sum of all scores will be the total score..3 The Town reserves the right to reject any proposal that receives a rating of two (2) or less on any criterion. 5.6 Evaluation Criteria Project Understanding and Methodology (maximum 200 points).1 Indicate your understanding of the key requirements and the methodology you will use in undertaking the project. Be sure to address in your own words all objectives and requirements of the RFP, including but not limited to: a. Understanding of the scope of work; b. Detailed description of the Methodology that will be used: i. A complete overview of the approach used for completing the hazard and risk assessments; ii. Submit a work plan that details all steps involved, including field and desktop work, and their deliverables, and any required input and support from the Town or other third parties. c. Understanding of issues unique to the steep creeks in the Canmore area; Page 4

16 d. Understanding of issues unique to The Town including any social, economic, environmental, political, community or regulatory requirements and challenges that may be encountered on assignments History and Stability of the Firm (maximum 150 points).1 Description of the firm s experience and expertise with steep creek flooding;.2 Outline the length of time firm has been in existence;.3 Duration of employment at the firm of key team members;.4 Outline any history of working in the Bow Valley the firm may have and how that may translate into value for The Town. If a Proponent does not have a history of working in the Bow Valley they are to highlight relevant experience and outline how they intend to familiarize themselves with local conditions and requirements Experience and Expertise of the Project team (maximum 250 points):.1 Provide an organizational chart with a maximum of five (5) key personnel from the Proponent firm and any key sub-consultants;.2 Provide a description of the role of each key team member;.3 The Proponent must identify any key sub-consultant firms, key specialists and key personnel, proposed as part of the project team;.4 Provide a brief CV s of the five (5) key personnel who would be expected to allocate time to specific Assignments;.5 Provide an availability table for each key personnel Past Projects and Performance (maximum 250 points):.1 Projects: a. Please provide a list of detailed hazard and risk assessments performed for steep creeks in the last three (3) years. b. Provide a detailed description of the three most relevant studies completed from the list above, including references. Each of the reference projects must have been led and largely delivered by the proposed project team..2 Performance: a. Where a documented history of past performance for the Town of Canmore exists which includes a minimum of three (3) recent performance evaluations an average score of documented performance evaluations will be used for the past performance score. Where appropriate the Town may also include references and other undocumented accounts to establish past performance scores. Page 5

17 b. Where a documented history of past performance does not exist, or where records are limited, references and other undocumented accounts will be utilized to establish past performance scores. c. The Town will use the criteria outlined in Performance Expectations Table 3.2 to evaluate past performance Fee Estimates and Hourly Rates (maximum 150 points).1 Fee proposal for the full scope of work is required..2 Breakdown the fee budget according to the different phases of the project. Ensure that the scope of work for XYZ and Echo creeks are well separated;.3 Identify any out of scope work;.4 Proponents are to provide a table of rates for key project personnel, which can be combined with availability table..5 Rates are to be determined as follows: a. All travel costs, lodging, and meals are to be included in the Hourly Rates. b. Disbursements are to be broken out separately and paid in accordance with the MCA. c. If team members are not based out of a local office, all time and expenses for travel to and from Canmore as well as accommodations are to be factored into the Hourly Rate. d. Price in Canadian dollars. e. GST should NOT be included in hourly rates..6 Provide opinion as to the accuracy of your proposed budget; and.7 Fee proposals are to be provided in a separate envelope. Fee estimates will be automatically scored after all other criteria based on the following formula Score = 150 x lowest fee proposal / Proponent fee proposal Page 6

18 SIGNATURE AND WAIVER SHEET 1. The Proponent hereby acknowledges that, prior to submitting a Proposal for this project, the Proponent has obtained from The Town s web site ( and thoroughly reviewed in order to be familiar with and certain as to all of the terms and conditions set out in the Request for Proposal documents and all amendments thereto which are incorporated by reference into the above-cited Proposal as follows: a) Town of Canmore Master Consulting Agreement; b) Affidavit of Execution; and c) Affidavit of Corporate Signing Authority. The referenced documents may be viewed at The Town s website ( under the Engineering heading. a) The Proponent acknowledges the documents incorporated by reference as indicated in paragraph 1 above. b) The Proponent further acknowledges that unless otherwise agreed by both parties and confirmed in writing it is subject to and bound by each provision included in each document incorporated by reference to the same extent that it would be if each such provision were set out and included with the hard copy of the Contract Documents. c) The Proponent further acknowledges and confirms that either: i) It has read and understood each provision included in each document incorporated by reference; or ii) By signing this Signature and Waiver Sheet it waives any and all rights to claim or argue that it was not aware of any provision of any document incorporated by reference. 2. The terms of this document are severable from one another, and the invalidity of any one or more paragraphs in this document, will not affect the validity of the other paragraphs. 3. The Proponent hereby acknowledges it has thoroughly reviewed and understood all the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal ( RFP ) which include those contained in the Instructions for Submitting Proposal, Special Conditions of Proposal, all documents included by reference as set out in Paragraph 1, all drawings and specifications as may be listed in the Index (together the Terms and Conditions ). 4. By signing this sheet, I confirm I have the full authority to represent the Proponent in all matters relating to the Proposal, and I confirm that the Proponent agrees to be bound by all the Terms and Conditions. Page 7

19 Name of Business Entity Complete Address: Phone Mobile Phone Fax Website Proponent Signature Affix Corporate Seal: Title Printed Name Date Note: A seal is a preferred element of the signing of a submission. However if the corporation or other legal entity making the submission does not have a seal or if it is not available, the corporation or entity should provide reasonable documentation to confirm the printed name and position of the person or persons signing, and also to confirm that such person or persons signing on behalf of the entity has or have authority to bind the entity. Affidavits of authority and execution will normally constitute reasonable confirming documentation. Forms for each of these affidavits can be found at Without limiting the preceding paragraph but for further clarity, if the corporation or other legal entity does not have a seal or if it is not available: For a corporation or other business association, the printed name and position of the person or persons signing together with an affidavit of execution and an affidavit of authority should be completed and submitted, For an individual or sole proprietorship, the printed name and position of the person signing together with an affidavit of execution should be completed and submitted. Page 8

20 APPENDICES Documents of Appendix A are available through hyperlinks. Appendix B is attached to this document. APPENDIX A - Examples of previous steep creek hazard and risk assessments BGC Forensic Reports: Echo Canyon Creek XYZ Creek APPENDIX B Town of Canmore - Creek Location Map Page 9

21 Overview Grot Riverstone Rd Echo Canyon Creek Moraine Rd Sandstone Terr Grotto Way Boulder Cres Glacier Dr Elk Run Blvd Alpine Meadows Highway 1A Bow Meadows Cres Indian Flats Rd Echo Canyon Creek Fan Transcanada Highway See Echo Canyon Creek Inset Highway 1A See XYZ Creeks Inset Dr Kilometres XYZ Creeks Walker Z-Creek Fan Kamenka Green Lawrence Grassi Rdg Wilson Way Peaks Dr Three Sisters Parkway Hwy 742 Y-Creek Fan X-Creek Fan Town Boundary Steep Creek Fans Kilometres Kilometres APPENDIX B - FIGURE 1 XYZ AND ECHO CANYON CREEKS FAN LOCATIONS Date: 11/17/2017 Name: Echo_XYZ_FanAreas_v01_ _DB Map produced by Town of Canmore GIS Services