Prince Edward Viaduct - Don Section Structure Modification - Contract No. T-71-99

(Midtown - Don River)

(City Council on February 1, 2 and 3, 2000, amended this Clause, by striking out the recommendations of the Works Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

“It is recommended that:

(1) Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999, for the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct, be cancelled;

(2) Toronto City Council support the proposed ‘Luminous Veil’ design for the Prince Edward Viaduct;

(3) Toronto City Council provide funding support to a maximum of $2.5 million, including GST/PST, to assist in the construction of the project;

(4) the Project Steering Committee undertake a fund-raising initiative to raise the additional funds required to meet the project budget, and that construction commence after the project is fully funded; and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Works Committee, in six months’ time, providing an update on the success of the fund-raising campaign, to date, and an analysis of the probability of the required funds being raised within a reasonable period of time;

(5) the Mayor be requested to write to the President and Chief Executive Officer of Bell Canada requesting that Bell Canada:

(a) donate the full cost of the installation of the emergency telephone lines on the north side of the Prince Edward Viaduct; and

(b) investigate the possibility of providing a solar-powered telephone, as provided by Toronto Hydro in High Park, and consult with Toronto Hydro on the development of the project;

(6) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to contact other telecommunications providers to determine their interest in providing a cost-effective alternative to Bell Canada’s absurd $100,000.00 (approximate) figure for providing the line on the north side of the Prince Edward Viaduct; and

(7) the City of Toronto support the Project Steering Committee through the creation of an interdepartmental staff team consisting of the Departments of Works and Emergency Services, Community and Neighbourhood Services, Urban Development Services and the Toronto Transit Commission.”)

The Works Committee recommends:

(A) the adoption of the report dated October 20, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, wherein it is recommended that:

“(1) Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999, for the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct be cancelled;

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to issue a new Request for Proposals with a maximum budget of $2.5 million, to solicit new design concepts and full engineering services for this project, based on a design/build concept, with the submission being evaluated by a similar Project Steering Committee comprised of representatives from:

(a) the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario; (b) the Council on Suicide Preventions; (c) the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto; (d) Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning; (e) the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee; and (f) the Technical Services Division, Works and Emergency Services

Department; and

(3) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto;” and

(B) that the fund-raising process be initiated and that appropriate staff be authorized to engage a fund-raising consultant, from the project budget approved by Council, and report back thereon to the Committee.

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(1) submit a report to Council for its meeting on February 1, 2000, on the following suggested cost efficiencies:

(i) two-lane road closure; (ii) reducing or eliminating the late penalties; (iii) increasing the length of time for completion; and (iv) the City undertaking traffic management; and

(2) give consideration to all suggestions made during the meeting of the Committee.

The Works Committee submits the following communication (November 29, 1999) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on November 23, 24 and 25, 1999, had before it the attached Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 5 of The Works Committee, headed “Prince Edward Viaduct – Don Section Structure Modification, Contract No. T-71-99 (Midtown – Don River)”.

Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Works Committee for further consideration at its next meeting to be held on December 1, 1999.

(Clause No. 1 of Report No. 5 of The Works Committee headed “Prince Edward Viaduct – Don Section Structure Modification, Contract No. T-71-99

(Midtown – Don River)”)

(City Council on November 23, 24 and 25, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Works Committee for further consideration at its next meeting to be held on December 1, 1999.) The Works Committee:

(1) submits the following report (October 20, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services without recommendation with respect to the cancellation of Contract No. T-71-99, pending submission of a report by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services directly to Council for its meeting commencing on November 23, 1999, on the option with respect to the $1.3 million “bus shelter” style barrier as a method of going forward immediately with the safety barrier on the Prince Edward Viaduct; and

(2) recommends that:

(i) the four payphones be immediately installed on the Viaduct;

(ii) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to:

(a) negotiate with the three bidders to reduce the budget price, if possible;

(b) work with the Project Steering Committee members to solicit private sector sponsorship;

(c) in conjunction with the City Solicitor and the Chief Administrative Officer, develop the details of an agreement with the media for the non-reportage of suicide attempts on City properties; and

(d) report back to the Works Committee at its next meeting on the status of the aforementioned negotiations and fund-raising; and

(iii) the Council Procedural By-law be waived to permit considering this item in camera:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise of the results of the Tender issued for the installation of a suicide prevention barrier on the Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct, in accordance with specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Council has previously approved an expenditure of $2.5 million. Acceptance of the low bid would require an additional expenditure in excess of $3.0 million, but no funds are allocated for the additional expenditure. Other options presented in this report would be within the original approved amount of $2.5 million. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial impact statement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999, for the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct be cancelled;

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to issue a new Request for Proposals with a maximum budget of $2.5 million, to solicit new design concepts and full engineering services for this project, based on a design/build concept, with the submission being evaluated by a similar Project Steering Committee comprised of representatives from:

(a) the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario; (b) the Council on Suicide Preventions; (c) the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto; (d) Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning; (e) the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee; and (f) the Technical Services Division, Works and Emergency Services Department; and

(3) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference:

The Bid Committee at its meeting held on October 6, 1999, opened the following tenders for Contract No. T-71-99, for the structure modification and the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct – Don Section:

Price Complete Including all

Tenderer: Charges and Taxes

Bridgecon Construction Ltd. $5,558,405.92 Grascan Construction Ltd. $7,029,900.00 G. Tari Limited $8,325,873.84

The tender submitted by G. Tari Limited contained minor errors in the extension of the unit prices. The revised figure is shown above.

Background:

On July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, Council adopted Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, Clause No. 2, and authorized the Works and Emergency Services Department (WES) to solicit proposals for design concepts and full architectural services for the installation of safety barriers on the Viaduct with a budget set at $1.5 million. The amount of $1.5 million was included in the terms of reference informing competitors of the parameters of the project.

On October 1 and 2, 1998, Council adopted Report No. 11 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, Clause No. 1, recommending the preferred design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership be adopted and that they be retained to prepare the detailed design and tender documents and to provide project management and site supervision services.

Subsequent to Council’s endorsement of the design, it was apparent that the design as selected could not be constructed within the original budgeted amount of $1.5 million.

On May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, Council adopted the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee (Report No. 7, Clause No. 2) which directed the WES to proceed with the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership, to prepare the detailed design and tender documents for the construction and to increase the funding for the project by $1.0 million to $2.5 million.

Comments:

On October 6, 1999, the Bid Committee opened the tenders, as stated previously in this report. The low bid price was $5,558,405.92, more than three times the original budget of $1.5 million and more than double the revised budget of $2.5 million.

Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership and their cost consultant, Vermeulens, are of the opinion, as stated in the attached letter (Attachment No. 1), that the tenders are too high for the value of the work indicated and reflect the high levels of risk associated with the project and current market conditions, rather than the underlying cost and scope of work.

In the attached letter, the consultant outlined a proposed course of action. City staff are not in agreement with the proposal mainly because it does not provide the assurances that the project would be completed within the available budget. Should Council decide to proceed with the option of a “test panel”, any procurement must be in accordance with the Purchasing Department’s procedures.

At present, an amount of $1.5 million is included in the approved WES 1999 Capital Works Programme under Capital Account TR029, Don Valley Parkway Rehabilitation. The source of the additional funding is yet to be identified.

There are five possible alternatives for this project:

(1) proceed with the construction of the suicide prevention barrier in the amount of $5,558,405.92;

(2) retain the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership and retender the construction utilizing a modified procurement process, including the erection of a “test” section to refine cost projections, prior to proceeding with the balance of construction. Expenditures in excess of $2.5 million would still require further allocation of funds;

(3) as an interim measure, install a chain link fence at a cost of approximately $800,000.00,until such time as the final barrier is installed;

(4) terminate work on the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership and initiate a new design competition, based on the design/build concept; or

(5) terminate work on the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership and construct a basic barrier at a cost of approximately $2.0 million.

Option (3) could be implemented by late winter/early spring of 2000. The timelines for Options (1), (2), (4) and (5) are all of a similar duration and would result in scheduled completion in late summer/early fall of 2000.

This matter was discussed with the Project Steering Committee at a meeting on October 19, 1999. The Committee is strongly in favour of Option (2) and has reached a consensus as follows:

(1) we do not recommend a second design competition;

(2) we accept the analysis of the tenders provided by Vermeulens Cost Consultants, that market conditions, overhead/access costs and perceived risk have inflated the bids;

(3) we recommend immediate installation of a temporary barrier and four payphones with appropriate Distress Centre signage;

(4) we recommend staff and Revington/Yolles negotiate with the lowest bidder to reduce the bid;

(5) we recommend a sample bay (approximately 6.4 metres) of the winning Revington/Yolles barrier be constructed to determine more accurately the cost and reduce the perceived risk;

(6) the Project Steering Committee supports a “design build” process to reduce costs and

perceived risk of the winning design; and

(7) we recommend the City seek private sector sponsorships to offset increased costs of construction and complete the Revington/Yolles barrier.

Should the recommendation to proceed with a new Request for Proposal (RFP) be adopted, WES will proceed immediately to reorganize the Project Steering Committee to fast-track the process. Such process will follow closely in line with the previous RFP procedure with a strong emphasis on the budget amount of $2.5 million. In order to ensure the budget is not exceeded, the work would be tendered as a design/build assignment.

As directed by Council in the May 11, 1998 Urban Environment and Development Committee Report No. 7, Clause No. 2, WES staff have had several discussions with Bell Canada and Toronto Hydro regarding the installation of four payphones on the approaches of the bridge. Cost estimates from Bell and Toronto Hydro to install the two telephone lines and power supply at the southeast and southwest corners of the bridge are in the order of $15,000.00. A work order for this work has already been issued and we expect completion of the work within four to six weeks. Installation of the telephone lines at the northeast and northwest corners of the bridge is more problematic and they are currently assessing the feasibility and cost to install these lines. As the cost of the installation of these two telephones is expected to be substantially higher, we will report to the Works Committee again once the investigation is completed.

On September 8, 1999, a meeting of the telephone sub-committee was held on the site to discuss and finalize the locations and proposed signage to complement the telephones. The signage shall include the telephone numbers of the Distress Centre.

Conclusions:

This report requests authority to cancel Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999, for the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct and also to issue a new RFP for a new design concept for the project.

Contact:

W. (Bill) G. Crowther, P.Eng. Director, Works Facilities and Structures Technical Services Division Tel. (416)392-8256; Fax (416)392-4594 E-mail: william g. crowther@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

The Works Committee also submits the following communication (November 3, 1999) from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River:

Today at 2:00 p.m. the Works Committee will be considering the Bloor Viaduct suicide prevention initiative.

I recognize that there is great concern about the significant increase in costs for this project. Starting over, or moving to a temporary barrier is not the answer.

The attached estimate shows that almost $2 million of the cost overrun is from non-structural costs and connection to the bridge. These costs would apply to any proposal, and therefore make the $2.4 million estimate originally proposed impossible to meet under any circumstances.

I suggest that the Committee continue to pursue the existing design, and defer the matter until the Commissioner can report on what can be done to reduce the overall cost of the existing proposal (including changes to the contract tendering process) and what can be done to raise money to offset the increased costs.

Too many people have died for us to take short cuts on this issue. People should remember that this issue is not just about the people who commit suicide, it is also about the people who witness the suicides, and the people below who are endangered.

My children enrolled in the high school at the west end of the viaduct. They have seen a lot of deaths. My daughter Maddy saw two deaths in the last three months. She has seen the mutilated bodies, one of which was found in the playing field just before gym class. Those memories will stay with her for a long time.

The local neighbourhood, the architectural community and the mental health community took great pains to come to agreement on this. It would be a great shame to dissolve that consensus. I hope the Committee will agree to give this project a chance by directing staff to make whatever efforts they can to reduce the cost to the City without abandoning the current design.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

_________

The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (October 29, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council, at its meeting held on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it Clause No. 9 contained in Report No. 4 of The Works Committee, headed “Prince Edward Viaduct - Measures to Deter Suicide Attempts”; and directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Works Committee for further consideration at its next meeting to be held on November 3, 1999.

The Works Committee further reports having also had before it the following communications:

(i) (June 11, 1999) from Dr. Richard H. Seiden, Oakland, California, advising that taking positive steps to reduce suicides through environmental modification is not a comparable

“displacement” to other places; and that the effectiveness of telephone measures is not so clear, suggesting instead the provision of a general “crisis” line.

(ii) (October 13, 1999) from Dr. Morton M. Silverman, M.D., Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Editor-in-Chief, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour, stating that limiting access to available means for suicide is a major preventive intervention within an overall community suicide prevention plan; and urging the City to make every effort to proceed quickly with implementing the Bloor Viaduct suicide prevention project.

(iii) (October 15, 1999) from Dr. David Lester, Professor of Psychology, Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, in support of the fencing in of the Prince Edward Viaduct; and advising that there is good research evidence that restricting access to lethal methods for suicide reduces their use for suicide; that there are no published research reports that evaluate the effectiveness of the use of other measures such as placement of telephones on bridges; and that all privately-owned structures are fenced in.

(iv) (October 20, 1999) from Staff Inspector W. Fordham, No. 54 Division, Toronto Police Service, respecting the proposal to install a signed telephone system on the bridge where high risk or emotionally disturbed persons would have immediate access to on-line counselling.

(v) (October 21, 1999) from Dr. D.J. Gunnell, Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology and Public Health Medicine, University of Bristol, outlining experience with efforts to reduce suicides from the Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol; and reiterating his support for the erection of safety barriers on the Prince Edward Viaduct.

(vi) (October 21, 1999) from Dr. Robin R. Richards, Head – Division of Orthopaedics, St. Michael’s Hospital, informing the Committee of the medical costs and public health consequences when a person survives a jump from the Bloor Viaduct, and urging City Councillors to complete the suicide barrier without further delay.

(vii) (October 25, 1999) from Dr. Claude Prevost, Regie Regionale de la Sante et des Services Sociaux, stating that the installation of a safety fence is the most appropriate prevention measure for the suicide problem at the Bloor Street Viaduct; and encouraging City Councillors to examine alternative designs that would meet both suicide prevention and fiscal requirements.

(viii) (November 1, 1999) from Mr. Michael McCamus, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, advising Councillors that the international suicide prevention community supports erection of a Viaduct barrier; urging Councillors to adopt the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee’s Seven-Point Plan as a realistic and fiscally responsible way to complete the winning barrier design; and forwarding documentation which concludes that bridge patrols do not save lives, that bridge distress phones are not an adequate substitute for barriers and that the costs of suicide and suicide attempts far exceed the cost of preventative measures.

(ix) (November 1, 1999) from Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, and Centre of Addiction and Mental Health, reviewing several points with respect to the issue of suicide barriers on the Prince Edward Viaduct for members of the Works Committee.

(x) (November 1, 1999) from Dr. Paul S. Links, Arthur Sommer Rotenberg Chair in Suicide Studies, Professor in Psychiatry, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s/Wellesley Hospital, informing the Committee of the research in favour of bridge barriers, and of the widespread social and economic costs of neglecting suicide.

(xi) (November 2, 1999) from Mr. Michael McCamus, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, forwarding additional newspaper articles documenting much of the efforts dedicated to the Bloor Viaduct barrier, and expressing the futility and waste of recommending a second design competition.

(xii) (November 3, 1999) from Dereck Revington Studio, providing a report on the background to the award of the design contract/tender call for the suicide barrier on the Bloor Street Viaduct; responding to questions with respect to the length of time the project has taken and the costs of the project; and reviewing the site, general conditions and proposed alternatives.

(xiii) (November 3, 1999) from Marion Joppe, Chair, Heritage Toronto, advising that Heritage Toronto continues to support the Steering Committee process and selection, and that the historic stature of the Prince Edward Viaduct warrants the best design solution obtainable.

The following persons appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Dereck Revington, Principal, Dereck Revington Studio, and Professor of Architecture, University of Waterloo;

- Mr. Richard Vermeulen, Vermeulens Cost Consultants;

- Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, FRCP(C), Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, University of Toronto; Director of the High Risk Clinic, Clarke Institute; and Member of the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee;

- Police Superintendent Aidan Maher, 52 Division, Toronto Police Service;

- Mr. Michael McCamus, SSO Bridge Committee Spokesperson of Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, and Co-chair of City’s Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee;

- Mrs. Mary Doucette, bereaved mother of Ray Doucette, Jr., representing the Doucette family;

- Mr. J. A. (Al) Birney, SSO Bridge Committee Chairman, and Past-President of East York Chapter, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario (SSO), and Co-chair of City’s Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee;

- Ms. Ellis Galea Kirkland, Urban Planning and Development Services, City of Toronto; Past-President of the Ontario Association of Architects; and Member of the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee; and

- Mr. Vincent Brescia, Labourers Union Local 183.

(A copy of Attachment 1 referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works Committee meeting of November 3, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on November 23, 24 and 25, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (November 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide further information concerning this project as requested by the Works Committee at its meeting held on November 3, 1999.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Council has previously approved an expenditure of $2.5 million. The current bids for the Dereck Revington/Yolles Partnership barrier design are all well in excess of the allocated funds. Other options presented in this report would be within the original approved amount of $2.5 million. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial impact statement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999 for the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct be cancelled;

(2) the October 20, 1999 report to the Works Committee be adopted and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to issue a new Request for Proposals with a maximum budget of $2.5 million, to solicit new design concepts and full engineering services for this project, based on a design/build concept, with the submission being evaluated by a similar Project Steering Committee comprised of representatives from:

(a) the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario

(b) the Council on Suicide Preventions (c) the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto (d) Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning (e) the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee; and (f) the Technical Services Division, Works and Emergency Services Department;

(3) Council consider the recommendations presented by the Project Steering Committee and should Council agree to adopt them, staff will conduct negotiations with the three bidders. On the advise of the solicitor, transfer of any part of the risk that would normally be assumed by the contractor will not be part of the negotiations;

(4) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background:

On July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, Council adopted Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC), and authorized the Works and Emergency Services Department (WES) to solicit proposals for design concepts and full architectural services for the installation of safety barriers on the Viaduct with a budget set at $1.5 million. The amount of $1.5 million was included in the terms of reference informing competitors of the parameters of the project.

On October 1 and 2, 1998, Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of Urban Environment Development Committee, recommending the preferred design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership be adopted and that they be retained to prepare the detailed design and tender documents and to provide project management and site supervision services.

Subsequent to Council’s endorsement of the design, it was apparent that the design as selected, could not be constructed within the original budgeted amount of $1.5 million.

On May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, Council adopted the recommendation of the UEDC (Report No. 7, Clause No. 2) which directed the WES to proceed with the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership, to prepare the detailed design and tender documents for the construction and to increase the funding for the project by $1.0 million to $2.5 million.

On October 6, 1999, the Bid Committee opened the tenders for Contract No. T-71-99, for the structure modification and the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct – Don Section. The low bid price was $5,558,405.92, more than three times the original budget of $1.5 million and more than double the revised budget of $2.5 million.

At its meeting on November 3, 1999, the Works Committee referred the report dated October 20, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to Council without recommendation and requested further information regarding the “bus-shelter” style barrier and requested staff to enter into negotiations with the three bidders to reduce the bid prices, if possible and to meet with the Project Steering Committee to solicit private sector sponsorship.

Comments:

At its meeting on November 3, 1999, the Works Committee expressed interest in the “bus shelter” style barrier presented in the initial report prepared by Morrison Hershfield in April 1998. That report reviewed different alternatives and costs for several types of barriers for this bridge. The “bus shelter” style of barrier was investigated along with a chain link fence, safety nets and an aluminum fence. Proposals for all four types of barriers were submitted during the design competition stage, but all were rejected by the Selection Committee early in the process in favour of the Dereck Revington/Yolles Partnership design.

Prior to the Works Committee meeting on November 3, 1999, staff confirmed the estimated cost of the “bus-shelter” style barrier to be approximately $1.3 million, but this design has not been reviewed in detail by Heritage Toronto or the Project Steering Committee.

Staff is recommending that a new design competition based on a design/build concept be initiated for the following reasons:

(1) A new design/build competition would ensure that the project cost of $2.5 million would not be exceeded.

(2) Heritage Toronto and the Steering Committee would have an opportunity to comment on the selected design.

(3) A new design/build competition would provide an opportunity to obtain the best design within the specified budget and would not result in any additional delays over the option of constructing the “bus shelter” style barrier.

A design/build contract would contractually bind the designer/contractor to design and build the barrier within the specified amount of the contract. The designer/contractor would assume all risk associated with cost overruns, unless the City specifically requested changes.

The “bus-shelter” style barrier has not been submitted to Heritage Toronto or the Project Steering Committee for their review and comments. A new design competition would allow them to comment on this option and any other submissions. Both Heritage Toronto and the Project Steering Committee would be involved in the selection of a new barrier design. The “bus-shelter” style barrier may emerge as the preferred option in a new design competition, but a new competition would provide the opportunity to review and select the best design available within the budget specified. Based on past experience, staff would prefer a barrier option as opposed to an enclosed option for ease of maintenance.

A new design/build competition would be fast-tracked to initiate a Request for Proposal by mid January 2000, with proposals being submitted to the City by the end of February 2000. Review of the proposals and final selection by the Project Selection Committee would be completed by mid March followed by award of the contract in mid to late April. The contract would commence immediately after award.

If Council approved the construction of a “bus-shelter” style barrier, installation would proceed in approximately the same timeframe as a new design, due to no construction taking place during the winter months.

In preparing to negotiate with the low bidders, Dereck Revington Studio (DRS) was asked if the barrier design could be modified in any way to lower the cost of the project. DRS responded verbally that there would be very little that could be changed in the design, since they have already gone through a cost reduction analysis during the final design stage. To date, we are waiting for written confirmation of their comments.

The City Solicitor and the Purchasing Department were contacted to discuss negotiating with the low bidder. Staff were advised that in case we opened negotiations, we would have to negotiate with all three bidders and that they must be provided with the same information regarding any changes to the contract requirements or design. The City Solicitor also stated that the City is not prepared to assume additional risk for the work, as proposed by DRS. Our current policy of the contractor assuming all risk of performing the work under a contract must be maintained.

A meeting of the Project Steering Committee was held on November 17, 1999, to discuss possible fundraising initiatives. The outcome of the meeting was a consensus position by the committee which is included in Attachment No. 1.

If the recommendation to proceed with a new Request for Proposal (RFP) is adopted, WES will proceed immediately to activate the Project Steering Committee to fast-track the process. Such process will follow closely in line with the previous RFP procedure with a strong emphasis on the budget amount of $2.5 million. In order to ensure the budget is not exceeded, the work would be tendered as a design/build assignment.

Should Council adopt the recommendations presented by the Project Steering Committee, staff will conduct negotiations with the 3 bidders. It should also be noted that the progress of the project would be entirely dependent on successful fundraising by the members of the Project Steering Committee and may jeopardize completion of the barrier in the year 2000.

As directed by Council in the May 11, 1998, UEDC, Report No. 7, Clause No. 2, WES staff have authorized Bell Canada and Toronto Hydro to proceed with the installation of two payphones located on the south side on the approaches of the bridge. Work orders for this work have been issued to Bell and Toronto Hydro and they are scheduled to complete the installation by mid-December. Installation of the telephone lines at the northeast and northwest corners of the bridge is more problematic and Bell is currently assessing the feasibility and cost to install these lines.

As the cost of the installation of these two telephones is expected to be substantially higher, we will report to the Works Committee again once the investigation is completed.

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to cancel Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999, for the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct and also to issue a new RFP for a new design/build concept for the project.

Contact:

W. (Bill) G. Crowther, P.Eng. Director, Works Facilities and Structures Technical Services Division Tel. (416)392-8256; Fax (416)392-4594 E-mail: william_g._crowther@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

(A copy of Appendix 1, a communication dated November 19, 1999, from the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (November 8, 1999) from Mr. Richard Vermeulen, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, explaining why the tender bids for the Prince Edward (Bloor) Viaduct suicide prevention barrier have exceeded the budget; and outlining the recommendations from the City’s Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee (PSC) to lower the bids and to permit completion of the approved barrier design.)

The Works Committee also submits the following report (December 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide further information concerning this project as requested by the Works Committee at its meeting held on November 3, 1999.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Council has previously approved an expenditure of $2.5 million. The low bid for the Dereck Revington/Yolles Partnership barrier design exceeds the budgeted amount by over $3 million. Other options presented in this report would be within the original approved amount of $2.5 million. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed this report and concurs with the financial impact statement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the recommendations contained in the report to the Works Committee dated October 20, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be adopted, namely that:

(1) Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999, for the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct be cancelled;

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to issue a new

Request for Proposals with a maximum budget of $2.5 million, to solicit new design concepts and full engineering services for this project, based on a design/build concept, with the submission being evaluated by a similar Project Steering Committee comprised of representatives from:

(a) the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario; (b) the Council on Suicide Preventions; (c) the Toronto Historical Board/Heritage Toronto; (d) Architecture and Civic Improvements, City Planning; (e) the Public Art Policy Advisory Committee; and (f) the Technical Services Division, Works and Emergency Services Department; and

(3) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background:

On July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, Council adopted Clause No. 2 of Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, and authorized the Works and Emergency Services Department (WES) to solicit proposals for design concepts and full architectural services for the installation of safety barriers on the Viaduct with a budget set at $1.5 million. The amount of $1.5 million was included in the terms of reference informing competitors of the parameters of the project.

On October 1 and 2, 1998, Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, recommending the preferred design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership be adopted and that they be retained to prepare the detailed design and tender documents and to provide project management and site supervision services.

Subsequent to Council’s endorsement of the design, it was apparent that the design as selected, could not be constructed within the original budgeted amount of $1.5 million.

On May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, Council adopted the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee (Report No. 7, Clause No. 2) which directed WES to proceed with the design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership, to prepare the detailed design and tender documents for the construction and to increase the funding for the project by $1.0 million to $2.5 million.

On October 6, 1999, the Bid Committee opened the tenders for Contract No. T-71-99, for the structure modification and the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct – Don Section. The low bid price was $5,558,405.92, more than three times the original budget of $1.5 million and more than double the revised budget of $2.5 million.

At its meeting on November 3, 1999, the Works Committee referred the report dated October 20, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the November 23, 1999 Council meeting without recommendation and requested staff to enter into negotiations with the three bidders to reduce the bid prices, if possible, and to meet with the Project Steering Committee to solicit private sector sponsorship.

On November 23, 24 and 25, 1999, Council struck out and referred this item back to the December 1, 1999 Works Committee for further consideration. On December 1, 1999, the Works Committee deferred consideration of this matter until its next meeting scheduled to be held on January 12, 2000.

Comments:

At its meeting on November 3, 1999, the Works Committee requested that staff negotiate with the three bidders to reduce the budget price, if possible and that staff work with the project Steering Committee members to solicit private sector sponsorship.

In preparing to negotiate with the low bidders, Dereck Revington Studio (DRS) was asked if the barrier design could be modified in any way to lower the cost of the project. DRS responded verbally that there would be very little that could be changed in the design, since they have already gone through a cost reduction analysis during the final design stage. To date, we have not received written confirmation of any suggested design modifications from DRS.

Prior to approaching the three bidders, the City Solicitor and the Purchasing and Materials Management Division were contacted to discuss negotiating with the low bidder. Staff was advised we would have to approach all three bidders and that they must be provided with the same information regarding any changes to the contract requirements or design. The City Solicitor has also advised that the discussions should not be construed as negotiations but rather as an approach by the City to the bidders to obtain input to determine if the project could be revised to allow for limited retendering to the three bidders. The City Solicitor has advised that negotiations with the bidders to determine a final contract is foreign to a tender situation. Any significant changes to the project, including the City’s original standard conditions, without retendering, puts the City at risk.

On November 22, 1999, as requested by City staff, DRS submitted a list of questions to be presented to the bidders in an attempt to solicit ideas that might potentially reduce the cost of the project. The questions were reviewed and modified by Legal Services, Purchasing and Materials Management Division and the WES Department. On December 7, the Purchasing and Materials Management Division faxed the list of questions to the three bidders requesting their responses by December 14, 1999. Responses were received by all three bidders and are included in the Attachments Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

In summary, the bidders stated that their bids reflect the true value of the work required and that there is minimal opportunity for cost reduction without a significant changes to the design or contract requirements.

Subsequent to the Project Steering Committee meeting of November 17, 1999, we received a letter from Mr. M. McCamus on behalf of the Steering Committee members reiterating their support for the DRS/Yolles Partnership design and expressing a willingness to participate in any fundraising initiative to assist in funding the project. The Project Steering Committee’s comments are included in Attachment No. 4.

Following the meeting of the Project Steering Committee held on November 17, 1999, to discuss possible fundraising initiatives, staff has made inquiries about the fundraising options.

WES staff have contacted staff of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department who have had past experience in fundraising activities as well as a fundraising consultant to discuss this project. Their recommendation is to perform a feasibility study prior to any major fundraising initiative in order determine the prospects of achieving the fundraising goals. In order to provide a quotation to perform a feasibility study, the fundraising consultant would need to know the amount of funds required, the timeframe of the fundraising campaign or when the funds are required and the type of corporate or private sponsorship in the form of advertising or marketing that the City is willing to permit on this project.

As directed by Council in the May 11, 1998 Urban Environment and Development Committee Report No. 7, Clause No. 2, WES staff have authorized Bell Canada and Toronto Hydro to proceed with the installation of two payphones located on the south side on the approaches of the bridge. Work orders for this work have been issued to Bell and Toronto Hydro and they are scheduled to complete the installation by mid to end of December 1999. Installation of the telephone lines at the northeast and northwest corners of the bridge is more problematic and Bell is currently assessing the feasibility and cost to install these lines. As the cost of the installation of these two telephones is expected to be substantially higher, we will report to the Works Committee again once the investigation is completed.

Conclusions:

Based on the response received from the three tenderers, this report requests authority to cancel Contract No. T-71-99, Tender Call No. 222-1999, for the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct and also to issue a new RFP for a new design/build concept for the project.

Contact:

W. (Bill) G. Crowther, P. Eng. Director, Works Facilities and Structures Technical Services Division Tel. (416) 392-8256; Fax (416) 392-4594 E-mail: WCrowth@city.toronto.on.ca The Works Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications:

(i) (January 1, 2000) from Mr. Michael McCamus, Bridge Committee Spokesperson, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, forwarding material with respect to Canada’s first medical “cost-of-suicide” study; and

(ii) (January 6, 2000) from Mr. J.A. (Al) Birney, Bridge Committee Chairman and Past President of East York Chapter, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, forwarding newspaper articles demonstrating concern for the design excellence embodied in the Prince Edward Viaduct and the “Luminous Veil” suicide barrier.

The following persons appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Dereck Revington, Principal, Dereck Revington Studio, Associate Professor of Architecture, University of Waterloo;

- Mr. J.A. (Al) Birney, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario Bridge Committee Chairman; Past President of East York Chapter, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario; and Co-Chair of the City’s Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee;

- Mr. Marco Polo, Editor, Canadian Architect magazine and Member of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (MRAIC);

- Mr. Michael McCamus, Bridge Committee Spokesperson of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, and Co-Chair of the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee; and

- Ms. Ellis Galea Kirkland, MRAIC, Urban Planning and Development Services, City of Toronto; Past President of the Ontario Association of Architects; and Member of the Bloor Viaduct Project Steering Committee.

(A copy of each of the attachments referred to in the foregoing report dated December 16, 1999, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works Committee meeting of January 12, 2000, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on February 1, 2 and 3, 2000, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (January 26, 2000) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide further information concerning this project as requested by the Works Committee at its meeting held on January 12, 2000.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial impacts associated with this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background:

On July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, Council adopted Report No. 8 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC), Clause No. 2, and authorized the Works and Emergency Services Department (WES) to solicit proposals for design concepts and full architectural services for the installation of safety barriers on the Viaduct with a budget set at $1.5 million. The amount of $1.5 million was included in the terms of reference informing competitors of the parameters of the project.

On October 1 and 2, 1998, Council adopted Report No. 11 of UEDC, Clause No. 1, recommending the preferred design by Dereck Revington Studios/Yolles Partnership (DRS) be adopted and that they be retained to prepare the detailed design and tender documents and to provide project management and site supervision services.

Subsequent to Council’s endorsement of the design, it was apparent that the design as selected, could not be constructed within the original budgeted amount of $1.5 million.

On May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, Council adopted the recommendation of the UEDC (Report No. 7, Clause No. 2) which directed WES to proceed with the design by DRS, to prepare the detailed design and tender documents for the construction and to increase the funding for the project by $1.0 million to $2.5 million.

On October 6, 1999, the Bid Committee opened the three tenders received for Contract No. T-71-99, for the structure modification and the installation of a safety fence on the Prince Edward Viaduct – Don Section. The low bid price was $5,558,405.92, more than three times the original budget of $1.5 million and more than double the revised budget of $2.5 million. The other two bid prices were $7,029,900.00 and $8,325.873.84.

At its meeting on November 3, 1999, the Works Committee referred the report dated October 20, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to Council without recommendation and requested staff to enter into negotiations with the three bidders to reduce the bid prices, if possible and to meet with the Project Steering Committee to solicit private sector sponsorship.

On December 3, 1999, Council deferred this item to the next meeting of Council in February 2000.

At its meeting on January 12, 2000, the Works Committee requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to City Council directly on the suggested cost efficiencies proposed by some of the bidders and DRS.

Comments/Discussions:

At its meeting on November 3, 1999, the Works Committee requested that staff negotiate with the three bidders to reduce the budget price, if possible.

On November 22, 1999, as requested by City staff, DRS submitted a list of questions to be presented to the bidders in an attempt to solicit ideas that might potentially reduce the cost of the project. The questions were reviewed and modified by Legal Services, Purchasing and Materials Management Division and the WES Department. On December 7, the Purchasing and Materials Management Division faxed the list of questions to the three bidders requesting their responses by December 14, 1999.

In summary, the bidders stated that their bids reflect the true value of the work required and that there is minimal opportunity for cost reduction without a significant changes to the design or contract requirements. Only the highest bidder indicated that any cost savings may be possible if changes were made to the contract requirements, but these changes would likely result in extra costs to the City.

Based on the responses from the bidders and comments by DRS regarding possible cost reductions for the project, the Works Committee at its meeting on January 12, 2000, requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prepare a report to City Council on the following suggested cost efficiencies:

(i) two-lane road closure; (ii) reducing or eliminating the late penalties; (iii) increasing the length of time for completion; and (iv) the City undertaking traffic management.

The suggested cost efficiencies are discussed below:

1. Two-lane road closure

Currently there are 3 eastbound and 2 westbound lanes of vehicular traffic, 2 bicycle lanes and 2 pedestrian sidewalk located on the bridge. The traffic control plan included in the tender permitted the Contractor to close one curb lane and one sidewalk for a continuous period of several months to execute the work. Two lanes of traffic in each direction would be maintained at all times, along with 2 bicycle lanes and one sidewalk. The work would be done in two stages with the barrier being installed on only one side of the bridge during each stage.

Implementing a two-lane road closure (i.e., closure of two adjacent lanes) would only permit 3 lanes of vehicular traffic plus two bicycle lanes and one sidewalk in operation during construction. Transportation Services has reviewed and rejected this proposal due to inadequate traffic flow capacity during peak hours. Two lanes of traffic in each direction, along with 2 bicycle lanes and one sidewalk must be maintained during peak rush hour periods, i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.. Transportation Services will only permit an additional lane reduction during off peak hours. The Contractor may be permitted to reduce the number of operating lanes down to 3 lanes (2 lanes in one direction and one lane in the other direction), plus two bicycle lanes and one pedestrian sidewalk during off peak hours.

2. Reducing or eliminating the late penalties

The existing tender has a provision for liquidated damages of $1,000.00 per calendar day, in addition to inspection costs to be charged to the Contractor for non-completion of the required work by the completion date. This type of clause is included in all City construction contracts and is applied in the majority of contracts in the construction industry.

Liquidated damages are a mechanism for the City to recover extra costs incurred due to the Contractor being unnecessarily late completing the work. The extra costs to the City include inspection cost, administrative and support staff cost. As such, it would not be in the best interest of the City to reduce or eliminate the liquidated damages clause from this contract.

3. Increasing the length of time for completion

The completion date for this project was established by estimating the amount of time necessary to complete the work and to avoid conflicts with other projects scheduled in the area. The length of time for completion of the work could be extended, but any change would have to be co-ordinated with other projects in the area and would have to be reviewed in order to avoid winter construction. Increasing the length of the overall project schedule will result in an increase in cost to the City for additional site inspection and administration of the contract and will prolong the inconvenience to the public.

It should be noted that during the tendering process, none of the Contractors indicated that the construction duration was insufficient to complete the work by the specified completion date.

4. The City undertaking traffic management

The City is capable of providing traffic management for this project. However, it is unlikely that we could provide the traffic management at a lower cost than the Contractor would submit in a competitive bid. The City does not have sufficient staff to assign to this project on a full time basis and would likely retain a company specializing in traffic control to undertake this work. By doing so, the City would also assume additional risk by providing this portion of the work.

The City’s standard practice is to make the Contractor responsible for all construction activities, including the traffic control, in order to avoid conflicts in co-ordinating the work and minimize our exposure to claims from the Contractor. The Contractor is best able to determine how to do the work in the most efficient manner, thus minimizing the cost and duration of the road closures.

Conclusions:

Transportation Services are opposed to providing a long term two-lane closure on this bridge due to the potential traffic congestion as a result of the additional restrictions and other work planned in the area. Reducing or eliminating the liquidated damages for this project is not recommended, since it may expose the City to additional cost for the project. Increasing the duration of construction will result in additional inspection and administration costs to the City and will prolong the inconvenience to the public. It is recommended that the City not assume the additional risk of providing the traffic management for this project, since it is very likely that this

would result in additional project costs and could potentially result in claims from the Contractor.

In conclusion, none of the suggested cost efficiencies will result in substantial savings, since they all have additional cost to implement or require the City to assume additional risk.

Contact:

W. G. Crowther, P. Eng. Director, Works Facilities and Structures Technical Services Division Tel. (416) 392-8256; Fax (416) 392-4594 E-mail: WCrowth@city.toronto.on.ca)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i) (September 28, 2000) from Mr. Barry W. Sampson, Assistant Dean, Facilities Planning and Design, Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design, University of Toronto, requesting that the recommendations of the Works Committee not be adopted and that Council affirm its commitment to the construction of the “Luminous Veil” on the Prince Edward Viaduct - Don Section;

(ii) (January 6, 2000) from Dr. Paul S. Links, Arthur Sommer Rotenberg Chair in Suicide Studies, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, expressing support for the installation of an effective safety barrier on the Prince Edward Viaduct - Don Section;

(iii) (January 28, 2000) from Mr. Bill Chomik, Past President of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, Chomik Architectural Group Inc., expressing support for the construction of the “Luminous Veil” on the Prince Edward Viaduct – Don Section;

(iv) (January 31, 2000) from Mr. Ben Burke, P.Eng, Director, The Canadian Society for Professional Engineers, expressing support for the installation of an effective safety barrier on the Prince Edward Viaduct – Don Section;

(v) (January 19, 2000) from Mr. Rusty Gibson, Gibson Compressor Services, proposing that a clear Plexiglas barrier be built instead of the present proposals for a suicide barrier to keep the architectural integrity of Bloor Street Viaduct architectural integrity and for easier maintenance;

(vi) (January 31, 2000) from Ms. Catherine Nasmith, Chair, Toronto Preservation Board, in support of the Dereck Revington design and reminding Council that the Toronto Preservation Board should be consulted before a solution is reached;

(vii) (February 1, 2000) from Dr. David H. Rosen, Department of Psychology, Texas A & M University, expressing support for the construction of the “Luminous Veil” on the Prince Edward Viaduct – Don Section;

(viii) (January 30, 2000) from Yew-Thong Leong, Chair, Toronto Society of Architects, expressing support for the construction of the “Luminous Veil” on the Prince Edward Viaduct – Don Section.)

(Councillor Giansante, at the Council meeting held on February 1, 2 and 3, 2000, declared an interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to the amendment by Council related to Bell Canada, in that his wife is an employee of Bell Canada.)