Officials with a local consulting firm say they are disappointed, but understand city council's decision not to award a contract worth nearly $240,000.

Zoe Morrison, a consultant with Urban Systems, said last Tuesday the company will put in a proposal again on the project if it comes up.

On June 9, council unanimously defeated a motion which would have awarded Urban Systems the contract for the pre-feasibility assessment looking at the city's urban containment boundary.

The decision came after council postponed the decision last month following concerns raised by Ian Robertson of Inukshuk Planning and Development about the proposal process. He argued it was not kept neutral as it should have been during the interview process.

In the evaluation of the proposals, Inukshuk came in just 1.1 point behind Urban Systems. Robertson argued last month the city should move to an impartial third party to review how the recommendation for the contract was reached before it's awarded.

Council had deferred the matter, with city staff recommending council defeat the contract award.

As it was noted in a report that came to council June 9: "During this interval, significant changes have occurred with the project teams proposed by the two companies with the highest ranking under the proposal review process.

"Administration feels these changes are considerable and create uncertainty in the proposal evaluation.

"As a result, it is difficult for administration to fairly determine a clear winner. Accordingly, administration is recommending that the city does not proceed with the contract award at this time.”

Morrison, who worked previously as a city planner, said the decision of council will change Urban Systems' plans for the coming months and may impact staffing.

"We're readjusting,” she said.

Robertson, however, argued the city should look at alternatives to simply not going ahead with the contract.

"There are other options that should have been considered,” he said, after noting the city had not addressed his earlier concerns.

He argued the city could have hired a third party to look at the contract award or could have considered splitting it and awarding it in two parts to his firm and Urban Systems.

While both Inukshuk and Urban Systems have seen staff leave, as the report to council noted, he pointed out Inukshuk still has the team leader that was set to work on this project.

Simply cancelling the contract, he pointed out, leaves both firms "hanging” with no indication as to when the contract could return to council and the issue of fairness continues to not be addressed.

He also argued council has not met its obligations of fairness and was not open and transparent, as the entire process should be.

His arguments were not enough to convince council, though, when it came time to vote.

As Coun. Jocelyn Curteanu said in explaining why she would go on to vote to defeat the motion, the project does not have any urgency.

If council pursues it down the road, it would give the city time to ensure the contract award is done right in a way that is transparent for all.

Mike Gau, the city's director of development services, confirmed under questioning by Coun. John Streicker that city staff will be looking at its processes and the points raised by Robertson.

Meanwhile, as a consultant, Coun. Kirk Cameron said he sympathizes with Robertson, but argued it's better for the city to look at his concerns and processes in awarding contracts in order to get it right the next time.