REQUEST FOR DECISION

File # 1220
1220--20
Report To: Mayor and Council
From: Director of Public Works and Utilities
Presenter: Jim Stewart
Subject: Administration Report No. 0035/22
Tender Award - Surerus Soccer Field Redevelopment
Meeting: Regular Council
Meeting Date: 09 May 2022

RECOMMENDATION:

"THAT, Council award the tender for the Surerus Soccer Field Redevelopment
project to Northern Legendary Construction Ltd. of Charlie Lake, BC, for the
unit rates in their tender submission dated April 12, 2022, totaling
$1,377,617.26."
CAO'S COMMENTS:

The best value procurement process continues to provide excellent and competitive value for
taxpayer money. It is particularly effective on larger value procurements such as this one.

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION:

"THAT, Administration Report No. 0035/22, Tender Award - Surerus Soccer Field
Redevelopment be received for information."

KEY ISSUES(S)/ CONCEPTS DEFINED: The City issued a Best Value Procurement based
tender for the Surerus Soccer Field Redevelopment project which included the installation of
irrigation, trail lighting and the development of a trail between the two pitches from 105th
Avenue to the existing park trail network. This tender has closed, been assessed and needs
to be awarded.
RELEVANT POLICY: Council Policy No. 22/20 - City Purchasing and Tendering Policy

IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION

COMPLIANCE WITH STRATEGIC GOALS:

Goal No. 1 - Enhance community economic development to provide
opportunities and sustainability for Fort St. John.

Goal No. 2 - Demonstrate leadership in environmental responsibility through

sustainable and effective practices for municipal operations.

Goal No. 3 - Build and manage civic assets and human resources that support
the current and future needs of the community.

Goal No. 4 - Initiate and foster partnerships that will benefit Fort St. John.
Advocate to decision makers on issues that impact the community to ensure
our northern voice is heard.

Goal No. 5 - Continue to invest in community social, cultural and recreational

assets and programs to provide an inclusive, vibrant, livable Fort St. John.

COMPLIANCE WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES:

GENERAL:
In the 2022 Budget process a budget of $2,315,000.00 was approved for the redevelopment and
reconstruction of the two soccer fields at Surerus Park and the Installation of irrigation,
trail
lighting and the development of a trail between the two pitches from 105th
Avenue to the existing park trail network.

In recognition of the complexity and strategic importance of this project it was decided that a Best Value
Procurement based tendering process would be used for this project as opposed to the traditional lowest
price process.

The Best Value Procurement model was developed in and has been used extensively in the States and has
been used by other Canadian Provinces and Municipalities with great success. For example, in 2016 the
County of Leduc, Alberta received an Alberta Award of Excellence for Construction Innovation for a road
construction project for their use of this process. The City of Fort St. John has used this procurement
model twice before with Phase 2 of 100th Street Redevelopment which went very well and Phase 3 of the
same project which is under construction.

On December 14th, 2020 Council endorsed the use of the Best Value Procurement process.
This tender closed on April 7th, 2022 and submissions were received from:
Š Knappett Industries (2006) Ltd. from Fort St. John

Š S. Young Enterprises Ltd. from Fort St. John

Š Northern Legendary Construction Ltd. from Charlie Lake
Š A.C.L. Construction Ltd. from Fort St. John

The Best Value Procurement tendering process requires tender submissions to be more comprehensive
and in a very specific format to allow comparative review of submissions.

Each tender submission for this project included the following items and each item was weighted as
shown:

Evaluation Criteria Points

Project plan (2 pages) 250
Risk Assessment Plan (2 pages) 150
Value Assessment plan (1 page) 100
Previous Applicable Experience (3 references) 200
Cost (Schedule of Quantities with Prices) 200
Key Project Staff Interviews 100
Total 1000

These various documents were reviewed by someone not on the review team to ensure that all company
identification and all information that might reveal company identification was removed. The documents
were then reviewed and scored blindly by each review team member. The scores were comparative scores,
if a company’s plan was average they received 5 points, if it excelled above the average they received 10
points and if they fell short of the average they received 1 point. This 1, 5, 10 point scoring system is
designed to exaggerate the differences and clarify the separation between the individual company
submissions. No intermediate scores were awarded.

The review team consisted of three senior staff members from the City of Fort St. John and two senior staff
members from the city project consultant, Urban Systems Ltd.

The five individual scores were then averaged and applied as a percentage to the potential points to get that
company's points for that plan. As an example, if a company’s average score for the Project Plan was 7
they would receive 70% of 250 points or 175 points. This process was repeated for each of the Evaluation
Criteria submissions except cost.

Cost was assessed as a function of the lowest tender price; the lowest tender price divided by the
company’s price times the points available would reveal the points issued to a company for its price.
Therefore, the company with the lowest price received 100% or all 200 of the available points and a
company with a price 25% higher than the lowest price would receive 80% or 160 of the available points
((100/125) X 200 =160).

After this review process the submissions were ranked as follows:

Company Best City Tender Amount

Value
Ranking
 Knappett Industries (2006) 1 Fort St. $1,962,470.00
Ltd. John, BC
Northern Legendary 2 Charlie $1,377,617.26
Construction Ltd. Lake, BC
S. Young Enterprises Ltd. 3 Fort St. $1,293,474.07
John, BC
ACL Construction Ltd. 4 Fort St. $1,696,836.00
John, BC

Once all the assessments and the ranking of the submissions were complete, the highest ranked
submission was reviewed for cost reasonableness as follows:

As a result of the Cost Reasonableness review, the review team selected to enter into the
clarification process with Northern Legendary Construction Ltd. The clarification meetings
went well and it is the recommendation of the review committee to award the Surerus Soccer
Pitches Redevelopment project to Northern Legendary Construction Ltd. and based on their
tender submission the estimated project cost and surplus are identified below:

Budget Summary
Total Tender Price (no GST) $ 1,377,617.26
Engineering Fees $ 211,000.00
Total Cost $ 1,588,617.26
Total Budget $ 2,315,000.00
Surplus (Deficit) $ 726,382.74

This project is anticipated to be delivered within the budgeted amount.

ORGANIZATIONAL:
There will be some impact on the Recreational Programming Department as they
coordinate and advise the various user groups that use Surerus Park. There will also be
impacts on the continued management and maintenance of the existing infrastructure by
the Grounds Department.

FINANCIAL: This project is projected to be completed within the budgeted amount.

FOLLOW UP ACTION: If the resolution is passed, a tender award letter will be issued and
construction will commence as weather conditions permit.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: Public Consultation for this project occurred during the
2022 budget process.

COMMUNICATION: Communications with the public will be through the City's

various social media platforms and direct communication with various user
groups will be through the Recreation Department.

DEPARTMENTS CONSULTED ON THIS REPORT:

Public Works and Utilities

Grounds

Communications
Community Services
Recreation Department

Attachments:
Urban Systems Tender Summary Letter
2020
2020--12
12--14
14--COW
COW-- Best Value Procurement Presentation
Project Plan

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Jim Stewart, Engineering Manager
16 Mar 2022
April 25, 2022 File: 1958.0439.42

City of Fort St. John

10631 100 Street
Fort St. John, BC V1J 3Z5

Attention: Jim Stewart, Manager of Engineering

RE: City of Fort St. John – Surerus Soccer Field Upgrades

TENDER SUMMARY

Four (4) tenders were received at the City of Fort St. John via online tendering system Bids & Tenders, by
2:00:00 PM on April 7, 2022, for the above referenced project. We have reviewed the tender submissions
for completeness of submittals required by tender documents and for mathematical errors. All
submitted tenders passed this review and proceeded to the best value procurement process

Tender Evaluation

This tender was evaluated using the best value procurement process detailed in the tender documents
and per the criteria and weighting listed in the table below:

EVALUATION CRITERIA POINTS

Tender Price 200
Project Plan 250
Risk Assessment Plan 150
Value Assessment Plan 100
Previous Applicable Experience 200
Interviews 100
TOTAL 1,000

The evaluation team consisted of the following people:

1. Jim Stewart, City of Fort St. John

2. Jeremy Garner, City of Fort St. John
3. Carrie Harder, City of Fort St. John
4. Kristin Bayet, Urban Systems Ltd.
5. Chris Larouche, Urban Systems Ltd.

On April 8, 2022, the evaluation team evaluated the following submissions from each of the tenderers:

1. Project Plan

2. Risk Assessment Plan

3. Value Assessment Plan

4. Previous Experience

10808 100th Street, Fort St. John, BC V1J 3Z6 | T: 250.785.9697

 Date: April 25, 2022
File: 1958.0439.42
Attention: Jim Stewart, Manager of Engineering
Page: 2 of 2

The scores provided by the evaluation team were scaled to the evaluation scoring matrix provided in the
tender documents. These scores were added to the scoring of the tender prices. After the scoring,
tenderers were selected for interviews based on the ability of the tenderers to earn enough points in the
interview to potentially be successful in the overall process. As a result, only the two highest scoring
tenderers were invited to interview.

The evaluation team conducted the interviews of the two tenderers on April 12, 2022. The final scores of
the tenderers after the interviews, ranked from highest to lowest based on the evaluation criteria are as
follows:

Ranking Submitted By Tender Price (GST included)

1 Knappett Industries (2006) Ltd. $ 1,962,740.00
2 Northern Legendary Construction Ltd. $ 1,377,617.26
3 S. Young Enterprises Ltd. $ 1,293,474.07
4 A.C.L. Construction Ltd. $ 1,696,830.00
As part of the best value procurement process and per the tender documents, a cost reasonableness
assessment was performed on the highest-ranking tenderer. The cost reasonableness assessment
reviews:

• That the tender price did not exceed 50% above or below the average of all tenders
• That the tender price is within the Owner’s budget
• That the tender price is within 10% of the next highest ranked tenderer’s tender price

The highest-ranking tenderer (Knappett Industries (2006) Ltd.) did not pass this cost reasonableness
assessment. As a result, the highest ranked tender was removed from the evaluation and the assessment
was repeated with the next highest ranked tender (Northern Legendary Construction Ltd.), as per the
procedures outlined in the tender documents. The next highest ranked bid passed the assessment.

Recommendation

After completion of the tender evaluations, interviews, and cost reasonableness assessment, it is the
unanimous recommendation of the evaluation team that the City of Fort St. John proceed to the
clarification period with the tender submission by Northern Legendary Construction Ltd. as the preferred
tenderer.

Upon completion of your own review of these tender submissions, and of your satisfaction with the
preferred tenderer during the clarification period, please notify the undersigned, in writing, with how you
would like to proceed.

Sincerely,

URBAN SYSTEMS LTD.

Kristin Bayet, P.Eng

Contract Administrator

/rh

U:\Projects_FSJ\1958\0439\42\C-Correspondence\C1-Client\Tender Summary Letter\2022-04-20- Surerus Soccer Field Upgraddes - Tender Summary Letter.docx
 Surerus Soccer Fields
Municipal Address: 10400 86 Street
OR
Legal Description: L A PL PGP41609 DF
S UE DER2
N
IS TE -03-2
22
20

List of Drawings
CIVIL DRAWINGS

CITY OF FORT ST. JOHN / SURERUS SOCCER FIELDS / 1958.0439.42 / 2022-03-22

C00 COVER
C01 PROJECT LEGEND
C02 PROJECT NOTES
C03 DEMOLITION & SITE PREPARATION
C04 GENERAL SITE PLAN
C05 SITE GRADING - PLAN
C06 SITE GRADING - SECTIONS
\\usl.urban-systems.com\projects\Projects_FSJ\1958\0439\42\D-Design\CAD\20_PROD\SET\C00-1958043942-TTL.dwg, C00, 2022-03-23 03:07 pm kleung

C07 SITE GRADING - SECTIONS

C08 SITE GRADING - SECTIONS
C09 SITE GRADING - SECTIONS
C10 SITE SERVICING
C11 SITE DETAILS
Atlin
Atlin
●

IRRIGATION DRAWINGS
Atlin
L

Dease
Dease Lake
Lake
● Dease Lake

IR-100 IRRIGATION PLAN

Fort
Fort
● Nelson
Nelson

IR-101 IRRIGATION PLAN

IR-102 ROTOR SPACING Hudson’s Fort Fort St
St
● Stewart
Stewart Hudson’s John
John
Williston
Williston Hope
Hope
LL ●
New
New Dawson ● Creek
Creek
Dixon Hazelton
Hazelton ● ●

IR-103 IRRIGATION DETAILS

Entrance
Entrance ● Mackenzie Chetwynd
Chetwynd
Smithers ●
Masset
Masset Terrace ● ●
● ● ● Tumbler
Tumbler
Queen
Queen Kitimat
Kitimat Houston ● Fort
Fort Ridge
Ridge
● Houston

IR-104 OPTIONAL IRRIGATION WORK

Charlotte
Charlotte ● St
St James
James
Lake ●
Burns Lake
● Fraser Lake ●
Fraser Lake
● ●
Haida
Haida Gwaii
Gwaii Vanderhoof
Vanderhoof ●
Prince
Prince
George
McBride
McBride
Quesnel ●
● ●
Wells
Bella
Bella Bella ● ● Valemount●
Valemount
Bella
Bella Williams
Williams

ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS
Queen Coola
Coola Lake
Lake ●
Charlotte
Charlotte Kinbasket
Kinbasket
Sound LL
PACIFIC
PACIFIC OCEAN
Port
Port
● 100 Mile
Mile
House
House
Hardy
Hardy ●
● Port McNeill

E000 COVER
McNeill Revelstoke
Revelstoke Golden
Golden

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

Alice ●
Port Alice
● Lillooet
Lillooet Ashcroft ●
Campbell
Campbell ● ●
River
River Powell Kamloops●
Kamloops ●Salmon
Salmon Arm
Arm ●
Vancouver
Vancouver Island
Island Powell Invermere
Invermere
● Whistler
Whistler Merritt ● Vernon
Vernon Nakusp
Courtenay ●River
River ● ● ●Nakusp Elkford

E001 SEGMENT 1 SITE PLAN Port ● Sechelt

Port Squamish Okanagan ● Kelowna
Sechelt ●Squamish Kelowna ●
Alberni L Kimberley
Kimberley
● Vancouver
Vancouver Hope Hope Penticton
Penticton Nelson
Nelson ●
Tofino
Tofino ● ● ● ● ● Castlegar
Castlegar ● ●Cranbrook
Ucluelet ●
Ucluelet ● ● ●
● ● Abbotsford Osoyoos
Osoyoos ●Trail
Trail ● Creston
Creston
●

E002 SEGMENT 2 SITE PLAN

Sidney
●
● Saanich
Saanich
Juan de
de Fuca
Fuca Str
Str Victoria
Victoria

E003 SEGMENT 3 SITE PLAN

0 100 200m
1:5000

ANSI expand D (34.00 x 22.00 Inches) 25mm 0

 Best Value Procurement
December 14th, 2020 Committee of the Whole Presentation
Current Practice -Invitation to Tender(ITT)
• Currently used for construction projects above $75,000.
• Often used when:
– The scope of the work / specifications are very detailed and completely
defined; and
– The selection of the contractor / supplier is to be based on price only.
• Contract is typically awarded to the lowest-priced quote which meets
the requirements.
• Typically, a legally binding irrevocable bid process, with no negotiation
element.
• Constructed Project ITTs are often based on a standard contract, e.g.
CCDC, or MMCD.
Best Value Procurement
• Established procurement method
• Trade law compliant
• Legally binding irrevocable bid process
• Bidders provide (and are evaluated on) info in addition to price
that describes the value they will bring to the project
What do we Value in a Contractor?
• Cost
• Ability to plan a project
• Ability to identify and mitigate risks
• Experience
• Other value that the Contractor can offer
• Contractor’s team
• Past performance
Why consider Best Value?
• Recognizes complexities and public impact of a project
• Balances bidder’s abilities, plans, and experience with
reasonable, but not necessarily lowest price
• Select contractor that provides best value to project
– Reasonable price
– Project understanding
– Risk management
– Experience
• Goal – a more successful project
What Makes a Successful Project?
• Team who bid the project, delivers the project
• Project was thought through prior to bidding
• Contractor understands the details of the project
• Surprises in the field are minimized
• Owner pays what they expected
• Contractor’s profit is what they expected
Best Value Procurement Process

Project
Selection and
Clarification Management &
Evaluation
Construction

Tender Award
Best Value Procurement Process
Contractor
Tender Enters
Information Tender Closes Review Bids
Market Session

Identify
Interview Short
Evaluate Bids Short List Preferred
Listed Bidders
Bidder

Clarification
Cost
with Preferred Tender Award
Reasonableness
Bidder
Phase 1: Selection and Evaluation
Tender Enters Market
• Tenders are submitted using the forms provided
• Forms are limited to the number of pages provided
– Project Plan (2 Pages)
– Risk Assessment Plan (2 Pages)
– Value Assessment Plan (1 Page)
– Previous Applicable Experience (1 Page)
• These sections are completed without identifying information
– company names, team names, project names, etc.
Phase 1: Selection and Evaluation
Bid Evaluation Criteria
Cost
Risk Assessment
Value Assessment
Project Plan
Previous Applicable Experience
Interviews
Phase 1: Selection and Evaluation
Cost Reasonableness

• Interview scores are incorporated into the final score for each
bidder
• The highest ranked bid is determined
• Cost Reasonableness Assessment is completed on the highest
ranked bid to ensure:
– Chosen bid is within budget
– Chosen bid is within reasonable threshold of other bids
Phase 2: Clarification
• Project Team works with the Preferred Bidder to clarify all of the
details of the project
• Clarification document is prepared that incorporates clarification
discussion and bid documents
• Clarification document becomes part of the contract
• Not a negotiation process, price doesn’t change during the
clarification
• Owner has the option not to proceed after the clarification period
• Successful clarification period ends with the award of the contract
Phase 3: Project Management &
Construction
• Execute the plan
• Hold the contractor to what was agreed to
• Higher standard for changes
Next Step

• Pilot Best Value Procurement process for Phase 2

of the 100 Street Corridor Project in 2021
Thank You