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.
* * * * *