ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
DATE: July 5, 1995
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: General Manager of Fire and Rescue Services
SUBJECT: Contract Award for a Review of the Deployment of Fire and
Rescue Services Emergency Apparatus and Staff.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the General Manager of Fire & Rescue Services be authorized to
enter into a contract, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the
Director of Legal Services, with TriData Corporation for management
and consulting services for a comprehensive review of firehall
locations, the deployment of emergency apparatus and staff, and the
City s insurance rating for commercial fire protection, at a
maximum cost of $128,000; funding to be provided from the Strategic
Initiative Funds included in the 1995 Operating Budget.
COUNCIL POLICY
Consultant contracts over $30,000 are to be awarded by Council.
Consultant contracts funded from the Strategic Initiative Funds included
in the 1995 Operating Budget (to support the review and re-design of the
major processes identified as part of the Better City Government
initiative) and which are greater than $100,000 are to be approved by
Council.
Contracts are to be awarded on the basis of best value for fee.
SUMMARY
This report seeks Council approval to award a consulting contract to
analyze and evaluate the capability of Vancouver Fire & Rescue Services
(V.F.R.S.) to effectively provide an acceptable level of emergency
medical, fire suppression, rescue, hazardous materials, fire prevention,
and related emergency services. Considering this evaluation, the
consultant s report will also contain analysis, recommendations, and
implementation plans for achieving the objectives of the Budget
Management Program that would minimize negative impacts on level-of-
service, property conservation, and safety.
In addition, the Vancouver Fire Department has not been independently
reviewed by an outside agency since the Fire Underwriter s Survey (FUS)
carried out by the Insurance Bureau of Canada in 1980. At that time, the
Department received a Class 1 insurance rating. The Class 1 rating was
the highest rating achievable under this system, however, there have
been many changes in to City and V.F.R.S. in the interim which could
affect this rating. As part of this contract, TriData would review the
requirements for maintaining or achieving the Class 1 rating.
The General Manager, V.F.R.S., recommends that the contract be awarded
to TriData Corporation of Arlington Virginia at a maximum cost of
$128,000 including G.S.T. and disbursements.
PURPOSE
This report recommends that a contract for management consulting
services relating to a comprehensive review of the deployment of Fire
2
and Rescue Services (V.F.R.S.) emergency vehicles and staff be awarded
to TriData Corporation based in Arlington, Virginia. The contract scope
will include a review of the Fire Underwriter s Survey rating for
commercial fire protection, last carried out in Vancouver in 1980. The
report requests Council approval of funding of $128,000, to be provided
from the Strategic Initiative Funds included in the 1995 Operating
Budget Fund.
BACKGROUND
On February 3, 1994, Council approved a 1994 to 1996 Budget Management
Program. The Budget Management Program prescribed a budget reduction
target of 5% of overall 1993 departmental expenditures net of self-
supporting programs and services, and net of cost recoveries and
miscellaneous revenues, but including the grant programs.
On April 14, 1994, Council approved departmental budget reductions and
revenue enhancements to meet the requirements of the 1994-96 Budget
Management Program. As part of the budget management program package,
the Fire Department budget reduction target were set at 2.5%.
The General Manager of Fire & Rescue Services was directed to report
back in one year on whether to implement his proposed reduction of one
piece of fire apparatus (combine a ladder and pumper truck at #21 Fire
Hall), or to achieve the same or greater savings through a comprehensive
re-deployment of firefighters and equipment.
On August 31, 1994, Council approved the distribution of a Request for
Proposal to solicit proposals for a comprehensive review of Vancouver
Fire & Rescue Services deployment of emergency staff and equipment. The
General Manager of Fire & Rescue Services was directed to report back to
Council with an analysis of the responses to the Request for Proposal
along with a recommended consultant and the associated costs of the
review.
This consultant review is consistent with and a part of the Better City
Government initiative that Council endorsed in April 1995. In this
initiative, the Fire Department operations were identified as one of the
fifteen priority areas for the City to address, and therefore, this
project supports this overall program. The Corporate Management Team has
reviewed this project and agrees that it should be funded through the
Strategic Initiative Funds included in the 1995 Operating Budget Fund.
DISCUSSION
In response to the requirement to provide ongoing budget reductions as
part of the Budget Management Program, V.F.R.S. provided options to
achieve target annual savings of $1,388,000 through a number of
initiatives. Several of these initiatives could involve changes to our
apparatus specifications, apparatus mix, and apparatus staffing. Major
components of the ongoing annual savings, as contained in V.F.R.S. s
submission to the Budget Management Program, are $90,000 from revised
equipment specifications and $391,000 through a re-deployment of staff
and equipment for total annual savings of $481,000.
One of the proposed budget adjustments to meet V.F.R.S. s budget
reduction objective was an equipment rationalization to combine a ladder
and pumper truck at Fire Hall #21. These two pieces of equipment would
be replaced by a Quint which is a combination type of fire apparatus.
The General Manager, V.F.R.S., expressed concerns about whether this was
an appropriate way to meet the target reductions while minimizing the
impacts on the risk level. The City Manager subsequently recommended
3
that the General Manager report back in one year on whether to implement
this proposal or to achieve the same or greater savings through a
comprehensive re-deployment of firefighters and equipment.
After discussions within V.F.R.S. s Executive Board, and subsequent
consultation with the City Manager and the Corporate Management Team, a
detailed independent review of the current capabilities of the Service
was suggested. Such a broad review is required before a rational
decision can be made on how to most effectively achieve the budget
reductions with the fewest negative impacts on the current level of
service, safety, or risk.
Council approved the issuance of a Request for Proposal on August 31,
1994. In cooperation with the Communications Advisor, a Request for
Expressions of Interest and Qualifications from the management
consulting industry for a comprehensive review of the locations of fire
halls and the deployment of emergency equipment and staff was published
on March 14, 1995. The Request for Expressions of Interest was also
posted on the International Association of Fire Chief s computer
bulletin board system (ICHIEFS). Eight firms responded to the Request
for Expressions of Interest and are listed in Appendix 1.
Concurrently, a Project Steering Committee was formed which includes the
Assistant City Manager, two representatives from the Firefighter s
Union, the Chairman of the Fire and Rescue Services Citizens Advisory
Committee, and four members of V.F.R.S. s senior staff. The Corporate
Management Team has been fully briefed about this project as has the
Coordinating Committee for Major Projects.
On April 13, 1995, the detailed Request for Proposals (R.F.P.) was
issued to the eight consulting firms. A bidder s conference was held on
May 8, 1995, to allow the Steering Committee to address questions from
potential proposers. Prior to the deadline for submission of proposals
on May 25, 1995, five firms responded to the R.F.P. The project costs
presented by the five responding firms are also identified in Appendix
1.
The Steering Committee has met several times to discuss and evaluate the
five detailed proposals. The five written responses to the City s RFP
were reviewed in detail and independent subjective evaluations by
Committee members were based on the following criteria:
A. Qualifications of the Firm. Previous experience in conducting
similar Fire Department management studies.
B. Qualifications of Assigned Consultants. Past experience in
conducting similar types of studies, past experience on each of the
specific tasks, and the proposed level of involvement by each
individual, including the number of hours and percentage of the
overall project that this represents.
C. Technical Approach, Methodology, and Schedule. Proposed work plan,
access to specialized information, understanding of specific
methodologies, and feasibility of the proposed work schedule.
D. Project Management and Coordination. Previous work as a team, if
relevant, management plan, and management experience.
E. Cost. Overall cost and reasonableness of cost proposal.
Committee members conducted reference checks of at least three current
or former clients for the two firms (TriData and MMA)that appeared to
offer the best value to the City. References were asked about their
overall impression of the firm, the quality of the work performed, and
the timeliness of the product.
4
Finally, the two short-listed consulting firms were interviewed by the
Steering Committee. The interview covered various aspects of the
proposals including project plan and methodology, consultant
qualifications, previous experience, management plan, schedule, and
cost.
Based on the proposal submitted, the results of the reference checks,
and the interview, it was the consensus of the Steering Committee that
the proposal submitted by TriData Corporation was likely to provide best
value to the City. TriData provided the second lowest cost proposal
($325 higher than the proposal with the lowest cost), have an
established track record in carrying out fire department specific
studies, have experience with similar sized departments, are familiar
with Canadian and West Coast departments, and the individuals involved
are skilled and knowledgeable.
SCOPE OF WORK
The time frame for this review will cover the projected demands for
emergency fire and rescue services and the resulting resource
requirements over a ten year period from 1995 to the year 2005.
The review of V.F.R.S. will address a wide range of operational issues
covering the total scope of emergency services provided. Comprehensive
answers to the following general questions will be included in one of
the three deliverable reports:
1. What quantitative standards of service delivery for fire
suppression, emergency medical, technical rescue, and hazardous
materials response and acceptable levels of risk should Fire and
Rescue Services use in its long term planning?
2. Does the Department have an adequate number and appropriate mix of
emergency response personnel and apparatus given the current and
projected demands for service? How will emerging demographic trends
affect service delivery over the next ten years? Are the current
apparatus specifications appropriate? What alternative types of
apparatus should be used?
3. Are the Department s fire halls, apparatus, and staff located
optimally throughout the City? Does the probable addition of the
University Endowment Lands affect this?
4. Considering the projected demands for the additional services and
the changes in demographics and growth of the City, how can the
budget be controlled to meet the objectives of the Budget
Management Program with the fewest negative impacts on service and
risk levels? The reduction options should be detailed and listed in
order of recommended implementation. Each option must clearly
address the annual savings achievable, the operational impacts,
impacts on emergency staff and public safety, the impacts on
service and risk levels, affects on fire losses, implementation
plans, and any other important considerations.
5. How does the Department compare in services offered, level-of-
service, level of risk, and emergency preparedness to other
comparable Fire and Rescue Services (benchmarks)?
6. What are the opportunities for improving the emergency response
effectiveness of the department so that we provide better overall
service?
7. Since the Department has just produced our first Strategic Plan,
how do the consultants recommendations affect our service in light
5
of the Plan?
In addition, there will be a review of Vancouver Fire and Rescue
Services based on the current version of the Fire Underwriter s Survey.
In particular, the review must include a detailed discussion of the
requirements of maintaining or re-achieving a Class 1 rating.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The maximum consultant cost of this project is $128,000 including G.S.T.
and consultant disbursements. The Corporate Management Team has agreed
that the appropriate source of funding for this project is the Stategic
Initiative Funds approved as part of the 1995 Operating Budget.
IMPLEMENTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
If Council approves the award of the contract, the contract documents
will be prepared for signature on or around August 11, 1995. The
tentative schedule for the deliverables is as follows:
Review and Analysis of Existing
Service Delivery System (Phase 1 Report): October 13,1995
Ten Year Projections, including the
optimum as well as under the Budget
Management Program (Phase 2 Report): December 8, 1995
Review of Fire Underwriter s Survey
Classification (Phase 3 Report): January 30, 1996
Formal Presentations to City Council, To be determined
Fire and Rescue Services Executive Board, prior to
and the Citizens Advisory Committee: Feb.28, 1996
Appendix 1
Respondents to
Request for Expression of Interest
CONTACT PERSON(S) ADDRESS Total Costs
& FIRM (excluding
taxes)
Mr. M.J. Sommers #2100 - 1055 Dunsmuir Street $227,950
Deloitte Touche P.O. Box 49279
Tohmatsu Four Bentall Center
International Vancouver, B.C.
Canada V7X 1P4
Mr. J.W. Snook 19562 River Run Drive $163,572
Management Lake Oswego, Oregon
Development U.S.A. 97034
Institute
Mr. M.E. Morse 60 Temple Place $213,179
MMA Consulting Boston, MA
Group, Inc. U.S.A. 02111
Mr. P. Schaenman 1500 Wilson Boulevard $119,325
TriData Arlington, Virginia
Corporation U.S.A. 22209-2454
Mr. S. MacKay #500 - 777 Dunsmuir Street $119,000
KPMG Management PO Box 10427, Pacific Center
Consulting Vancouver, B.C.
Canada V7Y 1K5
Mr. N.A. Alban Price Waterhouse Center did not
Price Waterhouse 601 West Hastings Street submit a
Vancouver, B.C. proposal
Canada V6B 5A5
Mr. R. Heikkila, #203 - 1104 Hornby Street did not
CFT Engineering, Vancouver, B.C. submit a
Inc. Canada V6Z 1V8 proposal
Mr. C.R. Knoke Suite 102 did not
Ms. R.J. Alatorre 127 Bellevue Way SE submit a
Personnel Resource Bellevue, WA proposal
Consulting, Inc. & U.S.A. 98004
Alatorre Consulting