Zero-Based Service Reviews - Calgary RFP For Methodology

Request for Proposal (“RFP”)
Date of Issue: 2011 May 18
DEVELOPMENT OF A METHODOLOGY FOR CONDUCTING

ZERO-BASED SERVICE REVIEWS
(THIS IS NOT AN ORDER)
SUMMARY
The City of Calgary is seeking a qualified consulting firm to research, design, validate and
document a methodology for undertaking zero-based service reviews for business units
across The City.
Zero-based reviews are intended to rigorously examine all aspects of a business unit from
a zero-base including but not limited to the following:
.1 The mandate, legal or other requirement for the service;

.2 Range and standards for service;
.3 Alignment of the service with citizen priorities and City policies and long-term goals;
.4 Efficiency of the service; and
.5 Effectiveness of the service.
Closing Time: 16:00:59 Hours Calgary Time

File Number: 11-1660
Closing Date: 2011 June 01
Note: Submissions will NOT be opened publicly
Pursuant to Special Conditions 9.0, it is the Proponent’s responsibility to request clarification
of any item that is unclear or uncertain within the content of the Proposal package before
closing time, by contacting:
Proposal Information: Phone: Fax: Email:

Dean Kolundzic Dean.Kolundzic@calgary.ca and
403-268-4333 403-268-5523
Buyer, Finance and Supply supplyconsulting@calgary.ca
2010 Oct 01 RFP Version 1.13

INDEX
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
1 PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING NOTICE 1
2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSAL 2
3 SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF PROPOSAL 3
4 SCOPE OF REQUIREMENTS 6
5 EVALUATION MATRIX 10
6 PRICE DETAIL SHEET 15
7 SIGNATURE AND WAIVER SHEET 16

PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING NOTICE
A Pre-Proposal Meeting has been scheduled for:
DATE:
LOCATION:
TIME:
____ MANDATORY PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING: Proposal submitted by firms who have not
attended the Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting will not be considered.
____ OPTIONAL PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING: Please note that specific and pertinent information may
be conveyed at this meeting. Proponents attending this meeting may be privy to project
information that may not necessarily be contained in any of the documentation provided.
__X__ NOT APPLICABLE: No Pre-Proposal Meeting will be held for this Request for Proposal
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSAL

1. Each Proponent should submit five (5) copies of their Proposal, one (1) hard copy clearly marked
“Original” and four (4) other(s) clearly marked “Copy”; along with one (1) electronic copy submitted
on CD or memory stick in a Microsoft Word or PDF format. If there are any differences between the
hard copy and the electronic copy, the hard copy marked “Original” will prevail.
2. The City of Calgary (“The City”) does not accept faxed or emailed Proposals.
3. Proposal must be written in English.
4. Each Proponent is solely responsible for ensuring that its submission is received and time stamped at:
The City of Calgary, Supply Management

Manchester Building “U”, 2nd Floor Reception
677 – 25th Avenue SE,
Calgary, Alberta T2G 4K8
at or before the stated closing time in the RFP package. Receipt of each submission will be confirmed
by The City of Calgary time clock stamp, located in Supply Management at the above address only.
No other time clock stamp will be considered valid. The City of Calgary is not responsible for any
submission received or time stamped after the stated closing time, and will not consider any such
submission.
5. Failure to address envelopes exactly as indicated may result in delayed delivery and rejection of the
submission. Any submission not received at the location specified on the label by the closing
date and time shown below will be returned and will not be considered.
6. To assure your submission is considered;
 Cut out the label below and affix this label to the outside of your submission. If you are placing
your submission in an additional envelope for shipping, the label should be on the OUTSIDE
ENVELOPE.
--------
Supply Management Loc. #8140

2nd Floor, Manchester Building “U”
677 – 25 Avenue SE
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2G 4K8
PROPOSAL NUMBER CLOSING DATE CLOSING TIME

11-1660 2011 June 01 16:00:59 Calgary Time
NAME OF BUSINESS ENTITY BUYERS NAME
Dean Kolundzic
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF PROPOSAL
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 The Special Conditions of Proposal are supplementary to the Conditions of Proposal, and form an
integral part of the contract documents. Where items covered by these Special Conditions of
Proposal are in conflict with items described elsewhere in the contract documents, or Conditions of
Proposal referred to, the Special Conditions of Proposal contained herein will govern.
1.2 The following documents have been incorporated by reference into the Request for Proposal:
 Conditions of Proposal;
 Professional Services Terms and Conditions;
 Affidavit of Execution;
 Affidavit of Corporate Signing Authority;
All documents included by reference can be viewed at The City’s website or go to: Calgary.ca
Business Sell to The City Bid and Vendor Information Supply Management Terms and
Conditions.
2.0 INTENTION OF AWARD
It is the intention of The City of Calgary to award all to one (1) Proponent. However, The City
reserves the right to award to more than one Proponent if deemed necessary or is in the best
interests of The City.
Depending upon the results and outcome of the project, expressed herein, additional related work
may come into existence whereupon The City reserves the right to either utilize the services of the
successful Proponent for additional related work, subject to the successful Proponent’s
performance and successful negotiation or return to the market with a new Request for Proposal
document when in The City’s best interest.
The City reserves the right to award the assignment in whole or in part or to delete any portion of
the project in the best interest of The City.
3.0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The City of Calgary Master Consultants Agreement (MCA) and the Master Consultants Agreement
- Abridged (MCAA) have been replaced by the Professional Services Terms and Conditions
(PSTC) for non-engineering and non-architectural work. Firms who have not executed a PSTC or
a document of a similar form (e.g. MCA or MCAA) and returned it to The City, will be required to do
so, prior to any award. The Professional Services Terms and Conditions document is included by
reference and can be obtained from The City’s website.
4.0 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The insurance details as per clause 15 of Conditions of Proposal apply. However, the Professional
Liability Insurance identified in the Conditions of Proposal will not be required for this Request for
Proposal.
5.0 STAFF CHANGES
Staff changes by the successful Proponent will require written approval from The City prior to any
such change, which approval The City may withhold in its sole discretion. The qualifications and
experience of the proposed staff change must be equivalent to or better than the staff proposed on
the proposal received. The City reserves the right, in addition and without prejudice to any other
right or remedy, to immediately terminate the Agreement as a result of the failure to comply by the
successful Proponent.
6.0 PROPONENT PERFORMANCE
The successful Proponent may be evaluated throughout the course of work in the initial project and
future projects if applicable. Any evaluation will be shared with the Proponent, with the goal of
immediate and permanent resolution where concerns have been raised. The City of Calgary
reserves the right, in addition and without prejudice to any other right or remedy, to terminate the
contract of a given Proponent if it is deemed that remedies cannot be established.
7.0 MULTI-FIRM PROPOSALS
If the application is submitted as a multi-firm proposal, the proposal should:

.1 Demonstrate the extent to which the proposed Firms have worked together before, including a
description of the type of work.
.2 Identify those project team members, from each organization, that have worked together in a
multi-firm or consortium business arrangement.
.3 Provide examples of where they have successfully partnered in a similar type engagement
previously.
.4 Demonstrate a multi-firm management approach that will ensure, for the duration of the project,
clear lines of communication and delivery of services.
.5 Identify management, ownership, and financial and legal relationships between the consortium
members.
.6 Indicate how the consortium is proposing to contract with The City to ensure a single point of
accountability for project completion and dispute resolution. Identify which firm will be
designated as the Lead Consultant.
.7 Define the scope of work to be performed by each Firm.
8.0 NON RESIDENT’S WITHHOLDING TAX

In compliance with regulation 105(1) Canada Income Tax Act, The City is required to withhold 15%
from all payments to non-residents for services rendered in Canada. Deductions made under
these provisions will be reported to you by Feb. 28, following the calendar year-end on form T4A-
NR Supplementary. Please identify the amount related to the work done in Canada separately
from work done outside Canada on your invoice. This purchase is subject to the 15% withholding
tax.
Additional information about the withholding, remitting, and reporting responsibilities relating to
non-residents who provide services in Canada is available from any of the Canadian Revenue
Agency's tax services offices or by contacting Canada Revenue Agency at the International Tax
Services Office at 1-800-561-7761, Ext. 9144 or 1-800-959-5525.
9.0 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS
.1 All requests for clarification and questions regarding this RFP must be submitted in writing via
email to Dean Kolundzic at dean.kolundzic@calgary.ca and to supplyconsulting@calgary.ca.
All questions or clarifications must be specific to this RFP and must include references to a
specific section or schedule and item number.
.2 It is further requested that all clarification and questions requests be received no later than
seventy two (72) hours prior to close. Although every attempt will be made, The City cannot
guarantee that questions received beyond this time period will be answered prior to the RFP
closing time.
.3 Requests will be answered by the Buyer or forwarded to the appropriate technical contact for
reply. Dependant on their nature, comments or answers will be returned via email from the
Buyer or through an addendum should the information be applicable to all Proponents.
SCOPE OF REQUIREMENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Calgary (The City) is issuing this Request for Proposal (RFP) for the purpose of
retaining a qualified and experienced consulting firm to research, design, validate and document a
methodology for undertaking zero-based service reviews of business units across The City.
2.0 BACKGROUND
On 2011 May 17, the City Manager and senior members of Administrative Leadership Team
(administration) approved a corporate strategy for improving efficiency and effectiveness across
The City. This strategy was developed in response to Council’s request to the administration to
ensure all city services are efficient, effective, in line with overall priorities and policy goals and are
financially sustainable.
A major new component of the strategy is the implementation of zero-based reviews of major
business units across The City over the next business cycle (2012-2014). Each review is required
to be rigorous, objective, and to follow a standardized methodology and process. While some
Canadian municipalities and governments have moved in a similar direction, there is no
methodology currently developed for undertaking such reviews that meets the requirements of The
City. The focus of this project is to develop a methodology that meets the needs of The City as
outlined in this document.
Zero-based service reviews build upon the fundamental premise of zero-based budgeting in that
they are intended to examine a business from a zero-base. However, rather than focusing primarily
on the budget, zero-based service reviews focus more broadly on all aspects of the business
including service scope and standards, alignment to priorities and policy, and the efficiency and
effectiveness of the business unit. While such reviews will be linked to the annual decision-making
on business plans and budgets, they occur outside this process and thereby allow for a much more
rigorous, in-depth and evidenced-based review of all services within a business unit.
It is critical that the methodology that is developed to undertake such reviews is able to be
conducted in a manner that is credible, objective and sufficiently rigorous to convince citizens,
Council and Administration that the business unit being reviewed is operating efficiently, effectively
and in line with the overall priorities and goals of Council and the citizens of Calgary.
3.0 PROJECT SCOPE, REQUIREMENTS AND DELIVERABLES
3.1 Project Scope and Requirements
The overall purpose of the project is to research, design, validate and document a methodology for
undertaking zero-based service reviews that can be used effectively for all business units across
The City, recognizing the range and types of services provided by the approximately thirty (30)
business units.
Specific requirements necessary for the successful Proponent to achieve the overall
purpose include, but may not be limited to the following:
.1 Develop a methodology that will be cognizant of and build upon the background activities,
reports and information of the past eighteen (18) months that provide the context for undertaking
of this initiative;
.2 Work closely with the efficiency and effectiveness improvement project manager to ensure the
methodology is supportive, integrated and compatible with the overall strategy for increasing
efficiency and effectiveness across the organization. The successful Proponent will also work
closely with the project manager to determine strategies for gathering the necessary input from
City staff and stakeholders. Engagement with citizens is outside the scope of this project.
.3 Ensure the methodology and approach is sufficiently detailed and standardized such that all
reviews will result in information and deliverables that are similar in nature irrespective of the
business unit under review or the successful Proponent undertaking the review;
.4 Ensure the methodology and approach can be utilized as-is without the necessity of significant
modifications to accommodate differences in size and types of services provided by the
business unit under review;
.5 Conduct a validation process, whereby the recommended methodology and approach is
reviewed by a selection of stakeholders that could include: the City Manager, General
Managers, Business Unit Directors and other stakeholders including potentially members of
Council. It is anticipated that three (3) - five (5) workshops and a number of meetings would be
necessary to meet this requirement. The approach to be used for such validation activities will
be determined by the successful Proponent and the efficiency and effectiveness project
manager;
.6 Gather information from five (5) – (7) comparable Canadian provincial or municipal governments
who have undertaken service reviews of a similar scope, nature or intent. As part of this
research answers to the following questions will be determined:
.a What criteria, process or considerations are utilized to determine which business units or
services were chosen for such a review and how a series of reviews are scheduled;
.b What questions are normally within the scope of a review;
.c What types of information collection and analysis is typically covered through the review;
.d What resources (internal and external) are required to carry out a review. If external
consultants and subject matter experts are used, what are the criteria or considerations
that are used to select consultants to undertake such a review;
.e What was the basis for determining and assigning efficiency and effectiveness targets for
such a review;
.f How are reviews governed? How are decisions made? What is the role of The City
Manager/Chief Administrative Officer) and of Council; and
.g What are some key success factors and lessons learned from other organizations to help
ensure service reviews are effective?
A summary of the findings and analysis of this research will be required as part of the final
report for the project.
3.2 Project Deliverables
.1 Provide a validation and enhancement of the five (5) general questions that have been
developed and that are a requirement for all zero-based service reviews;
The five questions are:

.a What is the mandate and legal or other requirement for the service?
.b What services are most critical to achieving the organization’s long-term goals
(imagineCalgary, Sustainability Direction) and citizen and Council priorities?
.c What are the appropriate range and standards of service for this community?
.d Are service processes and delivery methods efficient? and
.e Are the services effective in delivering the intended outcomes?
.2 In addition to the requirements outlined in Clause 3.1 (Detailed Specifications) above, a number
of deliverables are required from the successful Proponent including but not limited to the
following:
.a Development of additional sub-questions pertinent to each of the five (5) general

questions outlined in Clause 3.2.1(Detailed Specifications) above;
.b Provide a detailed outline of the methodology to be used to answer the five questions
including identifying those activities (such as information collection, benchmarking,
comparative information, client/customer/stakeholder consultation and cost benefit
analysis) that are mandatory and those that are optional. The methodology will provide
examples of tools, approaches and strategies wherever possible to outline how the
methodology is to be carried out;
.c Provide a generic process diagram that outlines the suggested timelines and major
activities for the completion of a zero-based service review;
.d Provide a generic communication plan that outlines the stakeholders and communication
requirements from initiation to implementation and follow-up of a zero-based review;
.e Develop a mock-up of a project initiation document that outlines the key information and
authorization requirements required to effectively initiate a review;
.f Provide a detailed outline of reporting requirements indicating how the results of a zero-
based review will be presented to decision-makers;
.g Create a roles and responsibility chart (RACI Matrix) that outlines the roles and
responsibilities for all clients and stakeholders involved with a review (Council, City
Manager, the Administrative Leadership Team, General Managers, Directors and staff
within business units, Corporate Initiatives and others). An estimate of the amount and
time and resources required for Directors and staff within business units under review is
required;
.h Provide a final report that will include, at a minimum, the following:
.i An executive summary;
.ii A summary and analysis of all information gathered during the project highlighting
information particularly important in developing the recommended methodology;
.iii A detailed description of the recommended methodology for undertaking such
reviews and all other deliverables that are outlined above;
.iv A risk assessment and risk mitigation strategies for the recommended
methodology;
.v Recommendations regarding the implementation of the methodology; and
.vi A PowerPoint slide deck that summarizes the process, findings and
recommended strategy.
4.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE

The following table outlines the proposed schedule for this project. The City reserves the right to
modify any of the dates noted.
ACTIVITY DATE
5.0 REVIEW BUDGET
Successful ANDawarded
proponent REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
contract 2011 June 15
Project initiation and start-up 2011 June 20 - 24
Research and information gathering 2011 June 27 – August 05
Completed first draft of all deliverables 2011 August 22
Validation activities with GM’s, Directors, staff and others 2011 September 06 -16
Final report due 2011 September 30
Presentation of final report to the Administrative Leadership 2011 November
Team
The budget for this review inclusive of all fees, administrative costs, disbursements and expenses
is $100,000 exclusive of GST. The budget amount may be subject to revision.
The clients for the review are The City’s Chief Financial Officer and The City’s Manager of
Corporate Initiatives. The review will be managed by a representative from Corporate Initiatives
Division who is also the project manager for the efficiency and effectiveness improvement program.
The successful Proponent will be required to work closely with the program manager and report, at
a minimum bi-weekly or on and as required basis on the status of the project. There will be a
requirement for the successful Proponent to meet with the clients at key milestones during the
project (two (2) – three (3) times).
6.0 POTENTIAL FUTURE WORK
Further related work beyond the scope as outlined above may include additional work currently
unforeseen. The City reserves the right to extend the service to include any additional work related
to this project, or return to the market with a new Request for Proposal document when in The
City’s best interest.
EVALUATION MATRIX
The evaluation committee will ensure compliance with mandatory criteria and evaluate and numerically
score each compliant Proposal. The evaluation will be restricted to the criteria contained in this section of
the RFP.
1. CONFIDENTIALITY OF EVALUATION
Evaluation scores and rankings are confidential, and apart from identifying the top-ranked Proponent
no details of the Proposal or score or ranking of any Proponent will be released to any other Proponent.
2. COMPLIANCE
A Proposal will first be reviewed for compliance with the criteria of this RFP. A Proposal not complying
with criteria may be considered non-compliant and may not receive further consideration.
The criteria for this RFP are:
.1 Received by Supply Management prior to the closing time and date as per the Instructions for
Submitting Proposal;
.2 Executed Signature and Waiver Sheet;
.3 Fully completed and signed Price Detail Sheet; and
.4 Signed Addendum (Addenda) if applicable.
3. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
.1 Your firm is invited to submit a written Proposal in letter format. Brevity is appreciated and Proponents
are requested to limit their Proposals to no more than ten (10) pages. Appendices, organizational
charts and personnel resumes are not to be considered in the number of pages. Brochures,
marketing information and other non-essential materials should NOT be included.
.2 Proposals should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise

description of the Proponent’s capabilities for satisfying the requirements of this RFP. Emphasis
should be on completeness and clarity of content.
.3 Information related to each of the listed evaluation criteria should be provided. Additional information
may be included at the Proponent’s discretion, but this must not detract from the ability of The City to
easily reference information for evaluation purposes.
.4 Proponents should use the Evaluation Criteria of Clause 4.1 of this document to provide the basis of
your firms’ response and maintain paragraph numbering.
4.0 EVALUATION MATRIX
Proposals will be evaluated as per the following evaluation matrix:
ITEM # CRITERIA DESCRIPTION WEIGHT RATING SCORE
4.1.1 Experience and Qualifications of the Project Staff 20

4.1.2 Record of Related Performance and 15
Achievements
4.1.3 Proposed Methodology 25
4.1.4 Project Understanding 10
4.1.5 Innovation and Value Added Services 10
Total Points Excluding Pricing /800

Pricing
lowest compliant offer ($20.00) x 200 =200 points
lowest compliant offer ($20.00)
4.1.6 N/A /200
lowest compliant offer ($20.00) x 200 =182 points
next lowest compliant offer ($22.00)
POSSIBLE TOTAL MAXIMUM SCORE /1000
4.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA
4.1.1 Experience and Qualifications of the Project Staff
.1 Provide a description of the qualifications, skills, experience and expertise of the project team in
relation to research, design, development and implementation of program or service
methodologies. Indicate how the proposed team will be able to meet the requirements and
deliverables outlined in this Request for Proposal (RFP).
.2 Submit resumes for the proposed project team members with a description indicating how and
in what ways the proposed resources satisfies the needs identified in this Request for Proposal.
.3 Outline the knowledge and experience of the project team in working in public sector
government or equivalent endeavours.
In providing information related to this criterion, Proponents should:
.4 Provide an organization chart for the core team for the project including roles and
responsibilities for each team member.
.5 Identify those individuals who will be assigned key roles for the different stages of the project,
the city where they are currently geographically based and their availability to provide services
in Calgary during the duration of the review.
.6 Identify the person who will assume responsibility for managing review deliverables and serve
as the Proponent’s main point of contact.
4.1.2 Record of Related Performance and Achievements
.1 Identify and provide a brief description of up to three (3) assignments relevant and comparable
in nature to this RFP completed by the Proponent firm within the last five (5) years.
.2 Provide up to three (3) client references related to similar assignments to this RFP. Each
reference should include the reference company name, address as well as the contact person’s
title and phone number and position. In each instance, indicate the length and value of the
project. The City reserves the right to contact only the references of the short-listed Proponents
when in its best interest.
4.1.3 Proposed Methodology
.1 Based upon the Proponent’s understanding of the review, provide an outline of the proposed
approach including major steps and a description of activities that will be undertaken to address
the requirements outlined in this RFP. Advise of any suggested modifications to the proposed
scope of work or related schedule.
.2 Describe the methodology from start to finish for addressing the required work outlining the
tasks and activities that would be undertaken to provide the required deliverables and the
timelines for completing them.
.3 Include a breakdown of staff assignments including the role and amount of time to be spent by
each staff member on each task. A more detailed work plan may be required from the highest
rated Proponent.
4.1.4 Project Understanding
.1 Demonstrate your understanding of the review scope, deliverables and requirements for the
project.
.2 Outline the key issues as the Proponent understands them.
.3 Demonstrate an understanding of the trends, issues and drivers impacting municipal
governments with particular emphasis on The City of Calgary.
4.1.5 Innovation and Value Added Services
.1 Describe and provide up to two (2) examples where the Proponent has employed innovative
approaches, methods or expertise that have provided additional value to clients that are similar
to this RFP.
.2 Provide information about unique, specialized, value added services that the Proponent can
offer to The City during the review.
4.1.6 Proposed Pricing
.1 The lowest compliant Proposal Price will obtain the maximum rating and all other compliant
Proposal Prices will be rated using the following formula:
E.G.
lowest compliant offer ($20.00) x 200 = 200 points

X 200 = 182 points
next lowest compliant offer ($22.00)
.2 A Price Detail Sheet has been provided for completion.

.a Complete the form indicating the hourly rate for the each rate requested.
.b Propose one flat rate only; ranges will not be accepted. (e.g. $50 to $60).
.c Hourly Rates must be inclusive of all costs such as travel, lodging, living expense,
administrative overhead, meeting costs as well as any other associated costs.
.3 All prices proposed should be in Canadian currency. GST should not be included.
4.2 Proposals will be evaluated and ranked according to the outline below. The evaluation will be
based on a 0 to 10 scale.
Rating Description
Exceeds expectations; Proponent clearly understands the requirement,

10
excellent probability of success.
8 Somewhat exceeds expectations; high probability of success.
Meets expectations; Proponent has good understanding of requirement, good
6
probability of success.
Somewhat meets expectations; minor weakness or deficiencies, fair probability
4
of success.
Does not meet expectations or demonstrate understanding of the
2
requirements, low probability of success.
Lack of response or complete misunderstanding of the requirements, no
0
probability of success.
4.3 The score of each criterion will be determined by multiplying the criteria weight by the rating. The
sum of all scores will be the total score.
4.4 The City reserves the right to reject any proposal that receives a rating of zero (0) on any criterion.
5.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION
.1 The selection committee will score in accordance with the matrix provided. It is the intention of The
City to shortlist the highest evaluated Proponents.
.2 The short-listed Proponents may be required to participate in a Presentation / Interview process
with the selection committee. Generally, one hour is allowed for this process, with 30 minutes for
the presentation and 30 minutes for the interview.
.3 The selection committee will then revisit their scoring matrix after the Presentation / Interviews and
proceed with a recommendation for the highest evaluated Proponent.
.4 The City may then negotiate a final contract with the highest evaluated Proponent in accordance
with Clause 28 of the Conditions of Proposal.
.5 In the event that one Proponent scores significantly higher than the other firms, the right is
reserved by the selection committee to eliminate the Short Listing Process and proceed directly to
negotiations with the highest rated firm.
.6 Throughout all stages of the evaluation process, the evaluation committee may, at its discretion;
seek additional clarification on any aspect of the Proposal; and perform reference checks as
required to verify or clarify the information provided and to obtain additional performance
information.
PRICE DETAIL SHEET

Estimated Hourly Total
Name and Role of
Hours Rate Proposed
Individual
Price
Total Proposed Price* $

1. All prices proposed should be in Canadian Currency. GST should not be included.
2. Total Proposed Price* will be used to calculate the score using the formula in the evaluation matrix
(see item 4.1.6, Evaluation Matrix).
3. Propose one hourly rate only per criteria. A range will not be accepted (e.g. $50 to $60).
4. Hourly Rates should be inclusive of all costs such as travel, lodging, living expense, administrative
overhead, meeting costs as well as any other associated costs.
5. The Price Detail Sheet must be part of your firm’s submission. Failure to submit a price detail
sheet may result in disqualification from the RFP process. Proponents are required to provide
pricing for each rate as requested.
6. Ensure that each required field has a numeric value.
7. Ensure that all mathematical calculations are conducted correctly. When The City determines that
a mathematical error exists, The City reserves the right to correct the calculation in accordance
with the numeric values provided.
8. The schedule contained in this price detail sheet is for evaluation purposes only and in no manner
constitutes a guarantee of work. Once a successful Proponent is selected, the hours may be
revised to reflect the final project plan.
Name of Business Entity:
Authorized Representative:
Printed Name
Signature
SIGNATURE AND WAIVER SHEET

1. The Proponent hereby acknowledges that prior to submitting a Proposal for this project, the
Proponent has obtained from The City’s web site (www.calgary.ca/bids ) and thoroughly reviewed in
order to be familiar with and certain as to all of the terms and conditions set out in the Request for
Proposal documents and all amendments thereto which are incorporated by reference into the above-
cited Proposal as follows:
 Conditions of Proposal;
 Professional Services Terms and Conditions;
 Affidavit of Execution;
 Affidavit of Corporate Signing Authority
All documents included by reference can be viewed at The City’s website or go to: Calgary.ca
Business Sell to The City Bid and Vendor Information Supply Management Terms and Conditions.
2. (a)The Proponent acknowledges the documents incorporated by reference as indicated in paragraph

1 above.
(b)The Proponent further acknowledges that unless otherwise agreed by both parties and confirmed
in writing it is subject to and bound by each provision included in each document incorporated by
reference to the same extent that it would be if each such provision were set out and included with the
hard copy of the Contract Documents.
(c)The Proponent further acknowledges and confirms that either:
i) It has read and understood each provision included in each document incorporated by
reference; or
ii) By signing this Signature and Waiver Sheet it waives any and all rights to claim or argue that it
was not aware of any provision of any document incorporated by reference.
3. The terms of this document are severable from one another, and the invalidity of any one or more
paragraphs in this document, will not affect the validity of the other paragraphs.
4. The Proponent hereby acknowledges it has thoroughly reviewed and understood all the terms and
conditions of the Request for Proposal (“RFP”) which include those contained in the Instructions for
Submitting Proposal, Special Conditions of Proposal, all documents included by reference as set out
in Paragraph 1, all drawings and specifications as may be listed in the Index (together the “Terms and
Conditions”).
5. By signing this sheet, I confirm I have the full authority to represent the Proponent in all matters
relating to the Proposal, and I confirm that the Proponent agrees to be bound by all the Terms and
Conditions.
Name of Business Entity
Complete Address:
Phone Mobile Phone
Fax Email
Website
Proponent Signature Affix Corporate Seal:
Title
Printed Name
Date
Note: A seal is a preferred element of the signing of a submission. However if the corporation or other
legal entity making the submission does not have a seal or if it is not available, the corporation or entity
should provide reasonable documentation to confirm the printed name and position of the person or
persons signing, and also to confirm that such person or persons signing on behalf of the entity has or
have authority to bind the entity. Affidavits of authority and execution will normally constitute reasonable
confirming documentation. Forms for each of these affidavits can be found at www.calgary.ca/bids.
Without limiting the preceding paragraph but for further clarity, if the corporation or other legal entity does
not have a seal or if it is not available:
 For a corporation or other business association, the printed name and position of the person or
persons signing together with an affidavit of execution and an affidavit of authority should be
completed and submitted,
 For an individual or sole proprietorship, the printed name and position of the person signing together
with an affidavit of execution should be completed and submitted.

Zero-Based Service Reviews - Calgary RFP For Methodology

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Zero-Based Service Reviews - Calgary RFP For Methodology

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Request for Proposal (“RFP”)

Date of Issue: 2011 May 18

DEVELOPMENT OF A METHODOLOGY FOR CONDUCTING

.1 The mandate, legal or other requirement for the service;

Closing Time: 16:00:59 Hours Calgary Time

Proposal Information: Phone: Fax: Email:

2010 Oct 01 RFP Version 1.13

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

1 PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING NOTICE 1

2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSAL 2

3 SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF PROPOSAL 3

6 PRICE DETAIL SHEET 15

7 SIGNATURE AND WAIVER SHEET 16

PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING NOTICE

A Pre-Proposal Meeting has been scheduled for:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSAL

3. Proposal must be written in English.

The City of Calgary, Supply Management

6. To assure your submission is considered;

Supply Management Loc. #8140

PROPOSAL NUMBER CLOSING DATE CLOSING TIME

SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF PROPOSAL

2.0 INTENTION OF AWARD

3.0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TERMS AND CONDITIONS

4.0 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

5.0 STAFF CHANGES

6.0 PROPONENT PERFORMANCE

7.0 MULTI-FIRM PROPOSALS

If the application is submitted as a multi-firm proposal, the proposal should:

8.0 NON RESIDENT’S WITHHOLDING TAX

9.0 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

3.0 PROJECT SCOPE, REQUIREMENTS AND DELIVERABLES

3.1 Project Scope and Requirements

3.2 Project Deliverables

The five questions are:

.a Development of additional sub-questions pertinent to each of the five (5) general

4.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE

6.0 POTENTIAL FUTURE WORK

The criteria for this RFP are:

3. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

.2 Proposals should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise

4.0 EVALUATION MATRIX

Proposals will be evaluated as per the following evaluation matrix:

ITEM # CRITERIA DESCRIPTION WEIGHT RATING SCORE

4.1.1 Experience and Qualifications of the Project Staff 20

4.1.4 Project Understanding 10

4.1.5 Innovation and Value Added Services 10

Total Points Excluding Pricing /800

POSSIBLE TOTAL MAXIMUM SCORE /1000

4.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.1.1 Experience and Qualifications of the Project Staff

In providing information related to this criterion, Proponents should:

4.1.2 Record of Related Performance and Achievements

4.1.3 Proposed Methodology

4.1.4 Project Understanding

4.1.5 Innovation and Value Added Services

4.1.6 Proposed Pricing

lowest compliant offer ($20.00)

next lowest compliant offer ($22.00)

.2 A Price Detail Sheet has been provided for completion.

Exceeds expectations; Proponent clearly understands the requirement,

5.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION