Low bidder offered services for $400,000 less
City council has postponed the award of a $1.47-million design contract over questions of why the company with the low bid was disqualified after making the first cut.
By Chuck Tobin on April 15, 2020
City council has postponed the award of a $1.47-million design contract over questions of why the company with the low bid was disqualified after making the first cut.
Council voted at its meeting Tuesday to put off consideration of the contract award for two weeks to give city administration an opportunity to provide additional information.
City administration is recommending Kobayshi & Zedda Architects be awarded the contract to design the addition to city hall and oversee the construction project, which includes a major retrofit to increase energy efficiency.
The total project budget is $20.8 million, with $16 million coming from federal and Yukon government grants.
Most of the council members said Tuesday they did not have a problem putting off the decision by two weeks to gather additional information, but they want to see the project go ahead this spring.
Others indicated there are some questions that need to be answered before they can vote on the contract award.
Coun. Laura Cabott said she has spoken to people in the architectural industry who did not bid on the work, and even they’re raising questions.
Over the Easter weekend, she had more discussions, she said.
Cabott noted the low bid for the design and construction supervision was $400,000 below the bid submitted by Kobayshi & Zedda.
The technical package submitted by the low bidder was evaluated and approved, and it was only after the second stage, when the pricing envelope was opened, that the company was disqualified, she pointed out.
“For me right now, there are too many questions unanswered, so I cannot support it,” Cabott told her colleagues.
Councillors Dan Boyd and Samson Hartland expressed similar reservations.
Councillors Jocelyn Curteanu and Steve Roddick indicated while they would support deferring the vote for two weeks, they could see nothing wrong with the evaluation process that ultimately disqualified the low bidder.
Council was told by administration the design award needs to happen this spring if the city hopes to complete its city hall project by March 31, 2023.
The 2023 deadline is set out in the funding arrangements with the federal and Yukon governments.
It was explained to council at last week’s meeting that four companies submitted bids by the Feb. 20 deadline for the request for proposals.
Two were found to be non-compliant after the first stage – the technical evaluation.
While two moved onto the pricing stage, the evaluation committee found the low bidder to be non-compliant.
“Of the four proposals received, two did not meet the minimum technical threshold required to continue to stage two of the evaluation process,” reads the administrative report prepared for council last week.
“A third proposal was deemed non-compliant by the evaluation committee; and even if the bid had been found to be compliant, the evaluation committee would have exercised its right to reject the bid because of the committee’s concerns about the bidder’s ability to perform the work due to various deficiencies in the bid.”
Council was told the evaluation committee’s conclusion was reviewed and supported by the city’s legal team.
Cabott suggested that perhaps Kobayshi & Zedda should not have even been allowed to bid, since the firm had been retained to come up with a conceptual design and an estimated construction cost on which the request for proposals was based.
Perhaps there should have been an independent party retained to provide an independent evaluation of the bids, she suggested.
The city hall project is part of the city’s reorganization that began with the construction of the new operations building off Range Road and the construction of the new fire hall on Black Street.
Many of the city staff working in the old and tired Municipal Services Building on Fourth Avenue will be relocated to the operations building while others will move into the new and renovated city hall when it’s complete.
Once the new fire hall is complete, the old fire hall beside city hall will be demolished to accommodate the new addition. The addition will include an indoor transit transfer station complete with public washrooms.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, council chambers have been closed to the public.
Mayor Dan Curtis was the only member of council in chambers for Tuesday’s meeting. The six councillors participated by phone.
Only senior city staff are attending the meetings in council chambers.
Comments (30)
Up 2 Down 1
BnR on Apr 22, 2020 at 7:32 am
Don’t like how this smells?
Sick of the same old building design being resurrected again and again?
And what about that MacBride museum design....
Money talks: avoid buying your morning coffee and treat at a coffee shop located at the east end of Main Street. Rhymes with waked....
Up 1 Down 0
Irving on Apr 21, 2020 at 4:19 pm
This smacks of 'Yukon Partyism'. Is the Yukon Party involved in this?
Up 5 Down 10
Anie on Apr 20, 2020 at 2:29 pm
False Impression how about you read the report before casting aspersions on the authors. And have you ever set foot in the dungeon where mechanics work on 2019 equipment and were designed in 1970?
Up 5 Down 27
Miles Epanhauser on Apr 18, 2020 at 12:20 pm
I am offended by the response to my second comment.
Mayor and council have a unhealthy relationship with the KSA for some reason and snowmobiles can do no harm but they are honest people and it's likely a contracting glitch and not favouratism with KZA.
Up 47 Down 5
Jonathan Colby on Apr 18, 2020 at 10:17 am
I mean, it's really quite easy. The city has corruption running through it, and has for decades. The old boys club? Yeaaaaaah.
K+Z make ugly, dysfunctional buildings, and I'm ashamed developers and government alike have latched on to them. Ugh
Up 37 Down 3
Curious cat on Apr 18, 2020 at 7:02 am
The city did the exact same thing with that new firehall project. Got a local company to build the request for tender, then voila! That same engineering company gets the tender. Soooo many problems with that building too. But hey, that’s how the city’s head engineer works.
Up 35 Down 3
Matthew on Apr 18, 2020 at 6:07 am
Let's be honest here.. 1.5M to design and manage the building during construction? So will they be paying the 10M over budget that it's an almost certainty then? Oh wait, silly me, tax payers again on the hook...
Up 11 Down 1
False Impression on Apr 17, 2020 at 11:45 pm
@Anie reports can be made to say anything just like statistics. We'll see what the new owners do with these lost cause buildings they get at a bargain price. And watch out for who gets them if they ever are sold or will they just be retrofitted for city expansion like the department of sustainability. You may need a rest.
Up 18 Down 0
Nine for One on Apr 17, 2020 at 11:39 pm
We need a parrot at City Hall meetings that bleats out nine for one messages on the half hour because Bill seems to have forgotten going around thumping his chest about how he was going to replace nine buildings with one over budget building on top of the hill. Nine for one.
What's Bill saying now 8 for one and that number will change when he gets money for retro-fitting which should have been done in the first place not after the fact in sleazy fashion duping the taxpayers once more.
Up 36 Down 3
utilitarian on Apr 17, 2020 at 8:45 pm
In my candid opinion K & Z have designed some of the most unimaginative boring box buildings in Whitehorse. What's the criteria for a successful bid aside from the cash, utility over beauty, bland over grand, monotonous over magnificent?
Up 5 Down 21
Micawber on Apr 17, 2020 at 5:20 pm
Comments reflect the good old Yukon ethos-if someone is successful, drag them down to a common level. Our species needs to improve. Not stagnate with boring, unimaginative boxes for buildings. Seems that the lower bidder could not demonstrate that they could deliver the required product in the required timeline. Maybe a few City councillors are qualified to evaluate such a complex, technical issue. Many bidders lowball and demand 'extras' over the course of the project.
Up 31 Down 1
Capitan on Apr 17, 2020 at 2:25 pm
Isn't administration trying to remove city council from being able to review tendering decisions? This is an interesting development in light of that.
@Miles Epanhauser, it's not inappropriate for people to raise questions. There might be a good reason for the low bid to be rejected, but it's pretty rare for that to actually happen. It needs to be explained.
I understand that companies might have concerns about too much of the process being revealed, but it's not enough for administration to just wave it away, saying it was non-compliant. The city contracting system is by no means beyond criticism.
Up 42 Down 5
Mr M on Apr 17, 2020 at 7:29 am
Old boys club in the Yukon hard at work again.
Up 31 Down 0
martin on Apr 17, 2020 at 6:42 am
@ The More You Know: I am sure they can't tell us due to "privacy concerns", as usual.
Up 27 Down 1
Matthew Sills on Apr 16, 2020 at 11:18 pm
Based upon what I read here, it appears that the concerns arose about the low bidder after looking at the price. Not sure, but it's a difference between $1.47 million vs $1.07 million. The evaluation committees concern centers upon the information contained in the price proposal. That could mean a variety of things. Did the price/ price breakdown indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the work? Impossible to say without knowing the structure of the RFP, evaluation criteria, and reasons for the non compliant ruling. It would have to be a pretty glaring error/mistake to back away from a $400 K delta. Strikes me as prudent to proceed with caution.
Up 5 Down 49
Miles Epanhauser on Apr 16, 2020 at 5:28 pm
This is clearly an open and now a very public process.
It's inappropriate for anyone to suggest that the city has a special inclination towards awarding the contract to KZA.
Up 5 Down 18
Micawber on Apr 16, 2020 at 4:50 pm
In the real world it is a common industry standard for design cost to be 7% of construction cost for qualified, established architects. 7% of 20m = 1.4m.
Up 56 Down 1
Wes on Apr 16, 2020 at 3:33 pm
So Kobayshi & Zetta got to come up with conceptual, write the RFP AND bid on the design too? That's awfully cozy.
Nothing like writing your competition out of the running.
Up 10 Down 19
Anie on Apr 16, 2020 at 3:29 pm
False Impression: give it a rest. Go to the city website and read the report, written years ago, about the adequacy and expensive o/m of the old municipal services (aka Cassiar) building on Fourth Ave. Read what it cost to heat it. Better yet, talk to any mechanic who tried to work in that ancient inadequate dungeon. Let it go.
Up 25 Down 1
Groucho d'North on Apr 16, 2020 at 3:18 pm
Now that all the prices are on the table. If any of the tenders was non-compliant, their price should never have been announced. That's how the two-envelope system is supposed to work, only those who score well for compliance (Envelope one) advance to disclosing what their price is in envelope two. More jiggery-pokery.
Up 91 Down 5
yukoner123 on Apr 16, 2020 at 9:22 am
We don't need another ugly outhouse design with corrugated metal siding and multiple slant roofs. Get someone else in there!
Up 69 Down 2
Jack pott on Apr 16, 2020 at 1:41 am
Didn't KZA also get the Museum extension contract without a competition?
Up 46 Down 1
Max Mack on Apr 15, 2020 at 6:44 pm
There is a certain malodorous quality to this council decision.
On another note, why let this contract proceed? CoW and talking heads are totally onside with locking everyone else down. I say they should play by the same rules.
Up 80 Down 1
Gringo on Apr 15, 2020 at 6:18 pm
KZA are involved in conceptual design, hence hired by the COW then they place a bid 400 grand above all others now somebody on council wants to give them the green light...I’m sorry this is total fraud. If it’s 40 grand so be it but darn near half a million, I call bologna! Gravy train needs to come to a halt.
Up 41 Down 1
False Impression on Apr 15, 2020 at 6:16 pm
I was mistakenly under the false impression that we were building the resort on the hill so all these other buildings which never had anything wrong with them in the first place could thereby be replaced.
Bill's wanton spending rides again. Remember the bragging short months ago about 9 for 1. Pfffft spare me.
Up 60 Down 0
Gary on Apr 15, 2020 at 6:12 pm
Smells a little fishy?
Up 63 Down 7
Pretty Strange on Apr 15, 2020 at 6:06 pm
Thank you Laura Cabbott for standing up and saying this is not passing the smell test, explanations are needed. Kobyashi and Zedda bid almost 40% more and the lower bid was disqualified at the stage where all they were doing was looking at the price? (they had already been deemed technically qualified) Sounds like the people running the tender did not expect the 'Outsider' (whether by geography or 'familiarity with the project'), to bid that much lower.
I don't know why Roddick and Curteanu have no problem with this.
Up 113 Down 1
The More You Know on Apr 15, 2020 at 3:19 pm
So who was the lowest bidder?
Up 107 Down 2
Miles Epanhauser on Apr 15, 2020 at 3:18 pm
Council is doing the right thing and it's good that is unfolding with public review.
The contract review process may have been too rigid and it may have favouring the firm most familar with the structure and design options.
The cost for designing the building seems way too high.
Up 143 Down 5
BnR on Apr 15, 2020 at 3:14 pm
KZA gets everything.
I’m sure it’s a bylaw. Good for Cabot for raising the issue.