Core Review Contract Bid Up for Discussion at Council
Monday, March 26, 2012 @ 4:01 AM
Prince George, B.C.- The awarding of the contract for the Core Review is up for discussion at Prince George City Council this meeting.
The contract full price carries a price tag of $284,895 plus administration costs, and HST. That would bring the core review cost in at approximately $335 thousand dollars once the administration costs ( currently suggested at 5%) and HST have been included.
That is still within the budget of $350 thousand dollars, however, it doesn’t leave any wriggle room for possible changes in the scope of the project.
The Core Review Select Committee has already made it clear it would like to see the public consultation portion of the review expanded, it would also like to have more input in each of the five milestone reports. Those changes could add on more transportation and communication costs, which in turn add on more HST.
Comments
Excuse me but why weren’t administration costs included in the total bid? Who would accept a bid that doesn’t include all the costs?
This city of PG, thats who. Bigger question, who puts out a bid and tells the bidder ahead of time what they can bid? And then to top it off, only have one bidder bidding. How do you spell control freak…G.R.E.E.N. Any concerns raised by council about this who process was dismissed out of hand by green and the city manager. Glad I am getting the hell out of the city limits within a year because this is going to cost the taxpayers of PG a healthy sum 2 or 3 years down the road.
who = whole
I have to agree with both posters. So far the bid up to this point is only $15,000. from the $350,000. the city allowed for this project. I am sure that when the dust settles it will be over the allotted amount.
I am glad that I do not live within the city bounderies, I live about 5 minutes out and am not subjected to the ever increasing of taxes and fees, not to mention I do not get the stink of the pulp mills or refinery here. The air is good where I am.
The admin costs were included. It can, in fact, be a requirement to present the bid in that fashion with admin and taxes separated out.
Not having seen the RFP, I would not know whether thst is the case here.
It is starting to become a frequent requirement with government projects that admin. costs cannot be more than 10%.
Showing admin. costs can favour larger firms. In fact, what one firm will put into “administration” and another firm will can be two completely different things. Unless the firm is asked to provide the line items which are included in admin, one is more likely to compare apples to oranges than not.
The way I see it is that on a project like this the written scope can be interpreted in many ways. The price is fixed and the scope is actually flexible .. it is, in a way, negotiated as the project gets started.
A project such as this ought to have a breakdown of who will be working on the project, what the charge out rates are, how many hours each is expected to work on specific components identified in the RFP and proposal provided to the City. In that way, there is a plan of work that is clearly identified and typically protects both parties better than the scope provided in the RFP. Since this is a Proposal, that would actually take precedent over the request scope. The City signs off on the proposal as provided or as amended by the two parties prior to signing.
Again, not having the RFP, I have to take a few educated guesses when I make comments.
Very nice newly retired. Next time you pollute the air driving to town make sure you stop and pay the road toll at the edge of town.
http://www.princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2012/2012_03_26/documents/Cmte_Core_Review_MERGED.pdf
The RFP is in Council’s package. It lists the srvices to be reviewed.
It is relatively clear that it is a 3 pronged review that is to be provided.
I fail to see how a thorough job can be done of that, especially the serevice efficiencies. At that price, it can only be a cursory examination using a few indicators.
Here is the requirement.
—————————————-
Scope of Work Concept for Service Efficiency Evaluation:
A service efficiency evaluation typically examines how City services are delivered with a view to ensuring that City services are delivered efficiently, effectively and with a commitment to achieving best-value for money.
A scope of work for the service efficiency evaluation component is expected to include:
a) classifying and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of City programs and services against Councilâs defined purposes for them;
——————————-
Interesting use of the words “expected to” instead of “will” or “must”. The door has been left wide open for discussion around “reasonable expectations”.
“Classifying and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of City programs and services against Councilâs defined purposes for them”
The last part of this blurb (against council’s defined purposes for them) is EXTREMELY important. Unless council has clear objectives and/or purposes for what the programs and services are supposed to entail, don’t expect the review to tell them all that much. The auditors will have to compare their findings to a benchmark, a service standard, an expectation, etc., and if those are absent (or they are fluff), again, don’t expect the review to be all that meaningful.
I sure hope that the mayor understands that the auditors can only work with the systems that the city has in place and that they can’t evaluate the effectiveness of the programs and services if the city hasn’t taken to time to first define what success looks like (including the implementation of proper systems to track the data that would enable a proper evaluation).
Now, if the City hadn’t done all of this, the auditors and KPMG certainly COULD develop an entire performance measurement/management regime for the City, but you are not getting that for $350K. You might not even get that for 3M, LOL.
Comments for this article are closed.