The city could be leaving the Takhini North reconstruction and development plans in the hands of UMA Engineering.

City council will vote next Monday on whether to go ahead with administration's recommendation that the approximately $1.2-million contract for the work be awarded to the company with $300,000 coming out of funding originally set to go into work since cancelled on Industrial Road.

UMA was one of two companies to make a proposal on coming up with the detailed design and construction management on the Takhini work.

The project involves reconstructing the water, sewer and roads already in the neighbourhood along with planning for the new utilities and roadways for the 82 new residential sites set to be developed there.

Proposed to be done over two years, the first phase will focus on the reconstruction of the current neighbourhood, with the second phase being the construction of the new area.

While there were two proposals for the work, Yukon Engineering Services came up short on the required 64 points needed in the city's evaluation.

That evaluation of proposals considers methodology and approach at 20 per cent, project experience at 20 per cent, fees at 20 per cent, project team at 30 per cent and local preference at 10 per cent.

It was only on Yukon content that Yukon Engineering Services had UMA beat with nine of a possible 10 points, while UMA had four.

" 'YES' team is based entirely in the Yukon whereas most of the UMA team is based in British Columbia, but are associated with local consultants Quest

Engineering and EBA Engineering," notes the administrative report presented to council's standing committee meeting Monday night by engineering manager Wayne Tuck.

On methodology and approach, Yukon Engineering had 12.7, with UMA receiving 17.9 points out of the possible 20.

The report to council states UMA clearly outlined its approach to construction issues around a temporary water supply, fire protection, the safety and co-ordination of work being done near residents, landscape and transportation, as well as the sustainable measures around storm drainage, water circulation and thermal protection for both phases of the work.

"The proposal from UMA was stronger in terms of understanding the objectives set forth by the Terms of Reference, the technical approach to the project, and the understanding of local conditions," reads the report.

While Yukon Engineering's proposal dealt with the majority of requests outlined in the project's terms of reference, it didn't deal with the issues around temporary water services, fire protection and safety around the construction.

"There also was no discussion or detail on traffic issues that address the impacts on Two Mile Hill and Range Road, nor did they address landscaping or storm drainage issues," the report notes.

With a possible 30 points available on the project team, UMA ended up with 25.8 and Yukon Engineering with 19.8.

UMA plans to use Quest Engineering as its main subcontractor and consultant on the design and its co-ordination, construction management, inspection and administration.

"They included experts in the field of traffic, landscaping and water and sanitary servicing issues regarding new developments and existing infrastructure," reads the report. "They also had experienced senior reviewers listed on the team."

Almost everyone on UMA's proposed team is already known to the city and already involved in the work being done for the upcoming Whistle Bend subdivision set to be located in Porter Creek's lower bench.

" 'YES' team did not have as strong or experienced team as UMA in design and construction management, nor did they identify experienced staff or sub-consultants to complete traffic, landscaping, drainage and development," reads the report. "YES did not have any involvement for experienced senior staff review."

Both UMA and Yukon Engineering were planning on subcontracting the soil work to EBA Engineering.

Of the 20 points for past relevant experience, UMA ended up with 18.1 while Yukon Engineering had 12.7.

"Both teams showed that they have experience in water, sewer and road construction projects," reads the report.

"However, UMA's team was stronger in water and thermal protection modelling and designs, traffic engineering, landscape design, land development and infrastructure renewal."

With Yukon Engineering not meeting the required 64 points needed from the first four criteria, city staff opted not to open the envelope containing the fees on the project. When a proposal doesn't meet the technical criteria, under its selection process, the city returns the fee without looking at it.

The city's engineering manager and senior engineer met with Yukon Engineering officials to go over the proposal and the reasons it didn't meet the technical criteria.

" 'YES' accepted the committee's decision and no concerns were raised," reads the report.

That left city officials to open up UMA's fee envelope, proposing $1.19 million (not including a contingency), which brought it under the estimated total and within budget for 2008 through 2010.

"The consultants are aware that the city proposes to award and complete only the design work in 2008 and the winter of 2009, and that the consultant services required for tendering and construction management and inspection would only be completed if the budget to reconstruct Takhini North and the proposed new developments in 2009 and 2010 is approved by council during the annual budget process," reads the report.

Coun. Florence Roberts was absent from Monday's meeting.