ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Date: July 5, 1996 Dept. File No. MG TO: Vancouver City Council FROM: Director of Central Area Planning SUBJECT: Selection of Consultant - Downtown Skyline Study RECOMMENDATION THAT the Spaxman Consulting Group be contracted to undertake the Downtown Skyline Study at a cost not to exceed $46,976. GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of the foregoing. COUNCIL POLICY On February 21, 1989, Council approved a policy that requires that the selection of consultants for projects of $30,000 or more in value, be approved by Council. PURPOSE This report recommends a consultant for the Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study. BACKGROUND On May 14, 1996, Council approved the terms of reference for the Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study to: - model both the downtown skyline we now have and will get with existing zoning at potential build out ; - model prototypical alternative downtown skylines; and - evaluate options against agreed upon criteria and recommend a preferred downtown skyline type. Council approved funding of $50,000 for the Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study. This amount was to be generally allocated as follows: about $40,000 for technical consulting work and about $10,000 for public process and polling. In accordance with the Terms of Reference, a Steering Committee chaired by the Director of Central Area Planning, including the Deputy City Manager and the Chair of the Vancouver City Planning Commission, is responsible for overseeing the administration of the study. The terms of reference call for the establishment of a 12 member Advisory Committee to work with the consultants at key points in the study. Staff have solicited nominations from the relevant organizations and will report back in September with recommended appointments. DISCUSSION A Request for Proposals for the Skyline Study was advertised on May 24 in the Vancouver Sun and on May 27 in the Journal of Commerce. In addition, information on the Request for Proposals was sent to 19 firms and individuals. The following proposals were submitted and each included both technical work and public input. - Architectura, M.J. Knoch and Associates; - Catherine Berris Associates, James Hancock Architects and E.V. Radvenis; - Paul Merrick Architects; and - The Spaxman Consulting Group and Jankovic Consultants. All firms were evaluated by 4 professional planning staff and the study s Steering Committee according to the following criteria: relevant experience, ability to meet deadlines, cost, involvement of senior principals, quality of proposal and methodology, ability to interact with the public and familiarity with similar studies and issues. The Steering Committee interviewed two consultant teams that had been short listed after reviewing their proposals. It was the unanimous conclusion of all reviewers that the following firm s proposal best satisfied the terms of reference, approved by Council: Name: The Spaxman Consulting Group Principal: Ray Spaxman Sub-consultants: Jankovic Consultants Cost: $46,976 This group offered the lowest price, had the best understanding of the study s methodology, had the best combination of relevant skills and experience and proposed a public process that was most consistent with the study s terms of reference. * * * * *