RFP 13-99
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SERVICES REQUIRED TO COMPLETE
A REMEDIATION STRATEGY FOR THE MOHAWK GREENWICH BROWNFIELD SITE
Addendum Issued: September 6, 2013
ADDENDUM No. 2
The following shall form part of the Request for Proposals documents for the above, first issued by the
Purchasing Division on July 31, 2013, and the revisions and additions noted herein and any attachments shall
read in conjunction with all other documents. This Addendum shall, however, take precedence over all
previously issued Request for Proposals documents where differences occur.
A.
RFP Communication
Proponents are strongly advised to carefully read over the following sections and familiarize themselves with
the terms and conditions of the RFP and their Proposal submission. Instructions to Proponents, Section
12. Interpretation, Clarification and Addenda, Subsections 12.5 and 12.6;

Instructions to Proponents, Section 13. No Lobbying and Single Point of Contact,
Subsection 13.2

Form of Proposal, Section 7, Interpretation
The City will not be held liable for any communication gathered by the Proponent outside of this RFP and
taken into account in the preparation of their Proposal or the Proponent’s understanding of the Project or
Work.
B.
Optional Site Visit, Section 10. Proponent’s Responsibility, Subsection 10.4
Proponents shall add the following:
“(4)
The City has scheduled an optional Proponent’s meeting for Thursday, September 12, 2013
at 9:30 a.m. sharp. Proponents will gather in the parking lot of the Military Museum, located
at 347 Greenwich Street, Brantford Ontario N3S 7X4. Proponents will be required to check
in at the security gate upon entering and exiting the location.
Proponents should note that, except for the Military Museum on 347 Greenwich Street and
the Timekeepers Building on 66 Mohawk Street, the site is currently vacant and all buildings
have been demolished.
After the initial introduction and discussion of the meeting, attendees will be allowed to view
the site located at 347 Greenwich Street at their leisure for approximately 30 minutes.
Attendees will be then be invited to continue on to 66 Mohawk Street where another 30
minutes will be allowed for viewing.
All attendees are required to wear CSA approved hard hats, safety vests and safety boots.
Attendees are required to PROVIDE THEIR OWN personal protective clothing.”
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 1 of 19
C.
Instructions to Proponents, Section 5. Price and Payments, Subsection 5.1
Proponents shall delete subsection 5.1 in its entirety and add the following:
“5.1
D.
Only the Proponents’ name and receipt of documents shall be publicly acknowledged at the
Purchasing Division office at approximately 3:01 p.m. local Brantford time on the closing date
of the Request for Proposals.”
Current Redevelopment Concept Plan
Proponents are advised that the current redevelopment concept plan is attached in this Addendum.
E.
Terms of Reference, Section 5. Existing Information
(1)
Proponents are advised that the following reports are new reports not previously available when the
RFP was issued on July 31, 2013. These reports are now available on the City of Brantford’s project
website:
http://www.brantford.ca/govt/projects/Pages/GreenwichMohawkSite.aspx
(2)

2000. Progress Report Phase 2 Environmental Assessment Former Massey Ferguson Manufacturing
Plant 347 Greenwich Street City of Brantford, Applegate Groundwater Consultants.

1997. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 22 Mohawk Street, Brantford Ontario, XCG.

2007. Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for Groundwater Impacts on the Eastern Property Boundary of 22
Mohawk Street, Brantford Ontario, XCG.

1998. Underground Storage Tank Removal at Sternson Limited, 22 Mohawk Street, Brantford,
Ontario, XCG.

2007. Additional Groundwater Monitoring 66 Mohawk Street, Brantford Ontario, Naylor Engineering
Associates.

1998. Underground Storage Tank Removal at Sternson Limited, 22 Mohawk Street, Brantford
Ontario, XCG.

2000. Phase 2 Investigation, Sternson Group Limited 22 Mohawk Street, Brantford Ontario, XCG
The following table summarizes all reports available electronically on the City’s project website and
any pages that have been re-scanned and replaced to improve the resolution quality of the document.
Project Website: http://www.brantford.ca/govt/projects/Pages/GreenwichMohawkSite.aspx
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 2 of 19
Re-scanned pages
Pages references = electronic file
page numbers
Table 2: page23 (to fix truncated table)
REPORTS ON THE WEB
22 Mohawk: Summary of PHC &
Xylene Impacts (XCG, 2001)
NOTES
Figure 1-4: pages30 -33(to fix truncated
figure)
Added Figure7: page 36 (was missing for
previous file)
Added Tables 1: page30 (incorrect from
previous)
22 Mohawk: Supplemental
Groundwater Investigation Part 1
(Naylor Engineering Assoc. 2007)
-Added Tables 2-7: pages 31-39
-Added Boreholes 302-324: pages 40-79
(missing even numbers boreholes from
previous file)
-Added Drawings 3-10 pages 82-89
(missing from the previous file)
No changes.
22 Mohawk: Supplemental
Groundwater Investigation – Part 2
Figures and Tables ONLY (Naylor
Engineering Assoc. 2007)
The Tables and
Drawings located in this
electronic file are those
that have now been
integrated into Part 1.
66 Mohawk and 347 Greenwich:
Subsurface Environmental Issues and
Feasibility of Retaining Buildings
(JaggerHims Ltd. 2008)
No changes
22 Mohawk: Perimeter Groundwater
Assessment (Naylor 2006)
No changes
66 Mohawk: Investigation of Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Contamination and
Former Transformer Compound
(Dames & Moore 1999)
-Figures Section: pages 53-62 (to fix
poor scans)
66 Mohawk: Geotechnical Review and
Preliminary Design for Proposed
Hydrocarbon Interceptor Trench
(Golder Assoc. 1998)
-Figure 1 replaced: page 7 (to fix poor
scan)
-Appendix A: pages 64-68
-Added cost estimate letter and
diagrams: pages 9-11 (missing from
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 3 of 19
REPORTS ON THE WEB
66 Mohawk: Environmental Screening
and Phase II ESA of Former Cockshutt
Plant (ESG International 2001)
Re-scanned pages
Pages references = electronic file
page numbers
before)
-Figures replaced: pages 50-56 (to fix
colour and poor scans)
NOTES
-Photographic records: pages 59-68 (to
fix colour)
-Aerial photographs: pages 69-73 (to fix
colour)
-Fire Insurance Maps: page74-78 (fix
scans)
66 Mohawk: Draft Phase II ESA (C.D.
Sonter 2002)
No changes
66 Mohawk: UST Decommissioning
and Soil Sampling (Belko Group 2005)
No changes
347 Greenwich and 66 Mohawk Street:
Structural Conditions Report (Group
Eight Engineering Ltd 2009)
No changes
347 Greenwich and 66 Mohawk: Peer
Review of Building Condition and
Stabilization Reports (Halsall Assoc.
2009)
No changes
347 Greenwich: Phase II ESA of
Former Massey Ferguson Plant (ESG
Internation 2000)
Figures replaced: page 41-43 (to fix poor
colour)
No changes
Photographic records: pages 44-60 (to
fix colour)
Figure C1-Tank Location Map: page 64
(to fix colour)
Figure D1-Transformer Location Map:
page 67 (to fix colour)
Screening Level Delineation for
Greenwich Mohawk (Environ April
2010)
No changes
66 Mohawk: Structural Stabilization
Report (Group Eight, March 2005)
No changes
Greenwich Mohawk GRCA lines
No changes
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 4 of 19
Re-scanned pages
Pages references = electronic file
page numbers
REPORTS ON THE WEB
NOTES
(Autocad file)
Greenwich Mohawk - GRCA lines (pdf
version)
No changes
Greenwich Mohawk: Structural and
Heritage Impact Assessments and
DSHMS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(Picco Engineering, Taylor Hazell
Architects, Cole Engineering 2012)
No changes
Greenwich Mohawk: Heritage Impact
Assessment - Full Report (Taylor
Hazell Architects 2012)
No changes
Greenwich Mohawk: Structural
Condition Assessment - Full Report
(Picco Engineering 2012)
No changes
Greenwich Mohawk: Designated
Substances and Hazardous Materials
Survey - Full Report (Cole Engineering
2012)
No changes
347 Greenwich St: Progress Report
Phase 2 Environmental Assessment
(Applegate Groundwater Consultants
2000)
NEW REPORT
22 Mohawk St: Phase 1 Environmental
Site Assessment (XCG 1997)
NEW REPORT
22 Mohawk St: Phase 2 Investigation
(XCG 2000)
NEW REPORT
22 Mohawk St: Remedial Action Plan
for Groundwater Impacts at the
Eastern Property Boundary (XCG
2007)
NEW REPORT
22 Mohawk St: UST Removal Report
(XCG 1998)
NEW REPORT
66 Mohawk St: Additional Groundwater
Monitoring (Naylor 2007)
NEW REPORT
22 Mohawk St: Phase 1 and 2
Environmental Site Assessment 22
Mohawk Street, Brantford Ontario
(Naylor 2006)
NEW REPORT
Designated Substances Survey: 347
Greenwich Street, 66 Mohawk Street,
NEW REPORT
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 5 of 19
REPORTS ON THE WEB
Re-scanned pages
Pages references = electronic file
page numbers
NOTES
and 22 Mohawk Street, Brantford
Ontario, (CD Sonter 2002)
F.
Proponent Questions Received and Corresponding Answers
The Contract indicates a Commercial General Liability Insurance requirement of:
Question 1
"not less than $5,000,000.00 per occurrence or such greater amount as the City may from
time to time request or other types of policies appropriate to the work as the City may
reasonable require."
Would the City be willing to accept a Commercial General Liability Insurance $2,000,000.00?
Answer 1
The City is not willing to consider reducing its CGL requirements at this time.
Question 2
Are the 21 MWs installed by Environ in its 2010 Phase 2 Investigation across the site are still
functional and accessible? Environ only installed one MW within 22 Mohawk. However,
Naylor advanced many MWs within 22 Mohawk, as reported in its 2006 (perimeter) and 2007
(supplemental) groundwater investigations. Have these MWs been decommissioned, or do
you know if they are still functional and accessible?
Answer 2
The City has no information on the status of any existing monitoring wells on the site. The
consultant will be responsible for the installation of monitoring wells required to complete the
work.
Question 3
Will the City provide reliance letters for previous reports?
Answer 3
No.
Question 4
How many monitoring wells still exist?
Answer 4
Please see Question and Answer 2.
Question 5
We are aware that pilot studies with steam injection were planned at the site. Have these
studies been carried out and are the reports (draft or final) available? If they have not yet been
completed what is the estimated date of completion?
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 6 of 19
Answer 5
The demonstration of steam enhanced extraction technologies by Accuworx and Groundwater
Technology has not been completed yet. The demonstration project is scheduled to begin the
week of September 9, 2013 and be completed at the end of November 2013. The area of the
demonstration project is delineated and fenced and will be outside of the scope of the work of
this proposal. The results of the demonstration project will be made available when the project
is completed.
Question 6
Will the City provide recent CAD and electronic data files from previous consultants to the
selected consultant?
Answer 6
The City does not have access to CAD files and electronic data files produced by previous
environmental consultants.
Question 7
In regards to RFP 13-99, kindly clarify if it is possible for the Qualified Person and the Project
Lead to be the same individual.
Answer 7
Yes, they can be, however, the Proponent needs to provide the information for that person to
suffice both sections of the evaluation criteria for the Lead and the QP.
Question 8
Instructions for Proponents Item 2 (12): "An unsealed Proposal may not be considered for
award". Does this mean that it must be in a sealed envelope or that it must be affixed with a
corporate seal?
Answer 8
This statement refers to a “sealed envelope”.
Question 9
Instructions for Proponents Item 17: Table showing Errors and Irregularities in Submissions
and Consequences of Each Error or Irregularity “Failure to attend mandatory site meeting at
the time specified in the Solicitation or failure to sign in as required in the Solicitation” will
result in automatic rejection of the proposal. Nowhere in the RFP is there any indication that
no mandatory site meeting is planned. Can you please confirm that no pre-proposal
mandatory site meeting is being contemplated?
Answer 9
There is no mandatory site meeting scheduled for this RFP.
Question 10
Proposal Submission Information Item 3.6: "The requirements outlined in this section are to
be answered in the order they are listed in a clear....." Is the order of section in the proposal
to be as laid out in Table 1 - Criteria for the Evaluation of Proposals?
Answer 10
Proponents should structure their Proposals to follow the order of the Evaluation Criteria
sections listed in Table 1.
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 7 of 19
Proposal Submission Information Item 5.3: "Therefore Proponents must include in their Total
Contract Price all costs to perform all testing, including testing that would be considered over
and above the standards of a Phase II ESA to fill in any information..."
Question 11
Will the City be prepared to contemplate conducting supplementary investigation work as an
extension to the current project or in Part 3 if the work undertaken in the Phase II ESA
component of Part 1, as currently planned, identifies additional contaminants or areas of
contamination that require further assessment or will you expect all investigation work to be
completed under the budget assigned in the proposal?.
Answer 11
The City will contemplate conducting supplementary investigation work if necessary.
Question 12
Form of Proposal Item 6, AODA Requirements: The work that is being conducted will not
involve the construction or preparation of works that are intended for access by people with
disabilities. Do we have to provide evidence of training of all employees in this regard?
Answer 12
The Consultant is required to comply with AODA Requirements
Pursuant to Section 6 of Ontario Regulation 429/07 (“Regulation”), Accessibility Standards for
Customer Service made under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005,
regardless if work is to be accessed by persons with disabilities.
Refer to the RFP document, Instructions to Proponents, section 21.
Question 13
The Proposed Land Use Concept included in the background information on your website
shows that the rail corridor that bisects the site is to be redeveloped as a trail/walkway and
"Focal Node". All other drawings appear to exclude the rail corridor from the site. Is the rail
corridor to be incorporated into the overall investigation program and remedial plan?
Answer 13
The rail corridor is not owned by the City and there is fencing on the site to delineate property
boundaries. The rail corridor is excluded from the investigation program and remedial plan.
Question 14
Table 1 Criteria for the Evaluation of Proposals: Section 2 addresses the provision of the
Project Lead and Section 3 addresses provision of a QP. Will you entertain a submission in
which the Project Lead and QP comprise one and the same person or are you looking for a
team that includes two different individuals? If one individual fills both positions, will the
available total point score (i.e. 20 points for the Project Lead plus 15 points for the QP for a
total of 35 points) be affected?
See Question and Answer 7
Answer 14
Question 15
Those sections of the Evaluation Criteria will be scored independently, based on the
information provided for each section for the individual acting as both the Project Lead and the
Qualified Person.
Table 1 Criteria for the Evaluation of Proposals: Section 1 includes provision for three project
descriptions. Can we append additional promotional project and technical information to
supplement the information required in Section 1 and if so, will it be considered to comprise
part of the 18 page technical proposal limit?
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 8 of 19
Additional information can be submitted through project data sheets and resumes and
inserted into the Proposal in an Appendix.
Answer 15
However, Proponents are to include the information necessary to respond to the Evaluation
Criteria in the narrative of the Technical Proposal rather than using an Appendix. Information
included in any supplemental Appendix may or may not be referenced in the scoring of the
Proposal.
Question 16
Table 1 Criteria for the Evaluation of Proposals: Sections 2 and 3 also cover the experience
and qualifications of the Project Lead and the QP. Must this personal experience information
be included as separate paragraphs for each individual in a subsection of the Technical
Proposal or can it be incorporated into the two-page CV that is to be submitted for each team
member?
Answer 16
See Question and Answer 7 and Question and Answer 14
Question 17
Table 1 Criteria for the Evaluation of Proposals: Section 4 covers the experience and
qualifications of all other team members. Must this information be included as separate
paragraphs for each individual in a subsection of the Technical Proposal or can it be
incorporated into the two page CV that is to be submitted for each team member?
Answer 17
See Question and Answer 7, Question and Answer 14, and Question and Answer 16.
Question 18
Terms of Reference Section 3.5: Will the communication strategy involve preparation of
materials for and a presentation to First Nations Groups?
Answer 18
There is no separate communication strategy to the Six Nations of the Grand River or the
Mississauga of New Credit First Nation which are the local nations in the Brantford area.
These nations will be invited to any public information sessions as part of the general
communication strategy.
The communication strategy for the general public will require the consultant to prepare
materials and a presentation.
Question 19
Does the City require that drilling companies, laboratories or other contractors whose services
may be retained on the project be identified by name in the proposal?
Answer 19
No.
Question 20
Do disbursements such as drilling, chemical analyses, travel, reproduction, etc. have to be
listed in the cost matrix separately or can they be combined as single estimated amounts
under each general cost category?
Answer 20
Disbursements may be combined as a single estimated amount under a general cost category
but must be included in the Contract Price.
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 9 of 19
Question 21
Agreement Clause 6.2: Proof of insurance will be submitted by way of an executed Certificate
of Insurance in a form satisfactory to the City of Brantford each year or ten (10) days prior to
renewal of policy. All requested lines of coverage to be shown on the Certificate. Our insurer
advises that updated Certificates will be provided as soon as possible at renewal time but that
a specific time frame (i.e. ten days) cannot be guaranteed since the policies are set up on a
global basis. Will that satisfy the City?
Answer 21
Yes, this is fine.
Question 22
Agreement Clause 6.3: All such insurance policies shall stay in force and if cancelled or
changed in any manner, that would affect the City as outlined in coverage specified herein for
any reason, thirty (30) days prior written notice by mail or facsimile transmission will be given
by the insurer(s) and forwarded to the attention of the City’s Purchasing Manager.
Our insurer provides 30 days notice for cancellation of a policy but does not provide such
notice for a change in terms/condition although they will undertake to provide notice in as
timely a fashion as possible. Will that satisfy the City?
Answer 22
Yes, this is fine.
Question 23
It is understood that buildings are to remain on the 66 Mohawk Street property. Will
subsurface investigation work be permitted inside the building if necessary?
Answer 23
Yes.
We have reviewed the historical documentation available on the City website, and request
additional information as follows. We look forward to your response.
i.
ii.
iii.
Question 24
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
2010, Report on Screening- Level Delineation Program, Greenwich-Mohawk Brownfield
Site, Environ EC; the header of the second page of Table 2 and the headers of Tables 3
through 9 are not legible- can these be re-scanned and provided?
2006, Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment, 22 Mohawk Street, Brantford
Ontario, Naylor; is this report available? –it is referenced in two of the reports provided.
2002, Draft Phase II ESA-66 Mohawk, Sonter; Pages 2 through 13 of the text are
missing and figures are difficult to read. Can the complete report be rescanned at a
higher resolution?
2001, Summary of PHC and Xylene Impacts 22 Mohawk, XCG, Page 23 (table) of pdf is
truncated and Figures 1 to 4 are truncated. Can these be provided?
2001, Environmental Screening Phase II ESA 66 Mohawk, ESG; 11 x 17 Figures are
truncated. Can these be provided?
Year? Report on the final design and installation of the Hydrocarbon Interceptor Trench,
Golder?; is there a report available?
2000, Phase II ESA, 347 Greenwich, ESG; The report contains the analytical results,
but the laboratory certificates of analysis are not included. Can these be provided?
1999, Investigation of PHC, 66 Mohawk, Dames & Moore; Figures 2, 4, 6, 7a are
truncated and Figure 7b is not legible. Can these be provided?
Feb- 1995, Phase I Source Investigation, GO Vacation Industries, 66 Mohawk Street,
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 10 of 19
x.
i.
Brantford, Ontario, Dames & Moore; This report is referenced in a 1999 Dames and
Moore report. Can this report be provided?
Jan-94, Preliminary Investigation of Stormwater Contamination, Mohawk Street,
Brantford, Ontario, Golder Associates; The 1998 Golder report references a 1994 Phase
I Source Investigation. Can this report be provided?
2010, Report on Screening- Level Delineation Program, Greenwich-Mohawk Brownfield
Site, Environ EC:
 Table 2 and Tables 3 through 9 have been re-scanned
ii.
2006, Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment, 22 Mohawk Street, Brantford
Ontario, Naylor:
 Yes it is now available on the City’s website*
iii.
2002, Draft Phase II ESA-66 Mohawk, Sonter; Pages 2 through 13
 Missing pagers were not recoverable.
iv.
2001, Summary of PHC and Xylene Impacts 22 Mohawk, XCG.
 Tables and Figures have been re-scanned.
v.
2001, Environmental Screening Phase II ESA 66 Mohawk, ESG
 Figures have been re-scanned
vi.
Year? Report on the final design and installation of the Hydrocarbon Interceptor Trench,
Golder?;
 This report is not available.
vii.
2000, Phase II ESA, 347 Greenwich, ESG
 The laboratory certificates of analysis are not available.
viii.
1999, Investigation of PHC, 66 Mohawk, Dames & Moore
 Figures have been re-scanned
Answer 24
ix.
Feb- 1995, Phase I Source Investigation, GO Vacation Industries, 66 Mohawk Street,
Brantford, Ontario, Dames & Moore
 This report is not available
x.
Jan-94, Preliminary Investigation of Stormwater Contamination, Mohawk Street,
Brantford, Ontario, Golder Associates;
 This report is not available.
*All documents that are available can be found at:
http://www.brantford.ca/govt/projects/Pages/GreenwichMohawkSite.aspx
Question 25
What is the status of the rail line that bisects the site?
Answer 25
The rail line that bisects the site is active. It is not owned by the City and is not part of the
Work.
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 11 of 19
Question 26
Do you require references for all staff (including field and support staff) or just for "key" project
staff?
Answer 26
References should be submitted for all key project staff, including any field or support staff
with a significant amount of hours or responsibility for the Project.
Question 27
Is it intended for separate RSCs to be filed for each individual municipal address (three RSCs
in total)?
Answer 27
It is intended that RSCs are filed separately for the individual municipal addresses.
Question 28
Would supplementary material (additional drawings or figures to support proposal) disqualify
or invalidate a firm's submission?
Answer 28
These are fine to include. If you want, you could include them as supplementary information
in an appendix.
Question 29
The 22 Mohawk Street and 66 Mohawk Street properties are separated from the 347
Greenwich Street property by a TH & B spur. Does the City own the spur line property? If
not, under O.Reg. 153/04,filing of separate Records of Site Condition for each block of land is
required, in which case Phase One and Phase Two ESAs for each block would be required.
Can you please clarify the land ownership?
Answer 29
Please see Question and Answer 25 and Question and Answer 27.
Question 30
What is the accessibility and condition of the existing ground water monitoring wells?
Answer 30
Please see Question and Answer 2.
Question 31
The development of the Phase Two ESA program, at this point, must be based on the review
of available documentation. In the event that the Phase One ESA and data gap analysis
identifies additional Potentially Contaminating Activities that were not addressed in the
previous investigations, will there be an allowance for the additional work that is required to
investigate those areas.
Answer 31
Please see Question and Answer 11.
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 12 of 19
Question 32
The ENVIRON screening-level delineation program report suggested additional delineation of
metals and PCBs would be conducted in the Spring of 2010. Was that work performed, and if
so, are the results available?
Answer 32
The Screening Level Delineations report by Environ was prepared in April 2010. The City is
not aware of any further work that was conducted beyond the scope of that report.
Question 33
The same document indicated ENVIRON completed a Phase I ESA. Is that available?
Answer 33
The City does not have access to the Phase 1 ESA prepared by Environ.
Question 34
Some of the figures in the ESG 2001 report for 66 Mohawk Street appear to have been cut off
when scanned. Can complete figures be made available?
Answer 34
Please see Question and Answer 24. These figures have been re-scanned.
Question 35
p. 25 Section 3.4. Project Work plan requires “All work on the Project” to be completed within
12 months of date of award. Please clarify whether work on the Project to be completed within
12 months is limited to Parts 1 and 2 as described on p. 40 in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 and as
stipulated on p. 45 Section 6.0.
Answer 35
The 12 month timeline is applicable to the completion of the Literature Review and Data Gap
Analysis and the Phase One and Two Environmental Site Assessments (as described in
Section 3.1, page 40); and the completion of the Remediation Strategy (as described in
Section 3.2, page 40-41); and the preparation of a Budget (as described in Section 3.3, page
42).
A new timeline will be developed to accommodate the work plan for the Implementation of the
Remediation Strategy and Project Management (as described in Section 3.4, page 42).
Question 36
p. 45 Section 6.0 refers to required meetings described in Section 4.3. However, there is no
Section 4.3 in the Terms of Reference for the RFP, please clarify.
Answer 36
The meetings are outlined in Section 3.5 on page 43. (This was mis-referenced in the original
RFP). Section 6.0 should be corrected to state: “The Consultant shall be prepared to complete
all conditions of Part 1 and Part 2 of the Project, including the required meetings described in
Section 3.5, within 12 months from commencement of the Project.”
Question 37
Is there previous reports present for the entire Mohawk Greenwich Brownfield site (or a
portion only). If present, is it possible to have the historic condition of the soil and/or
groundwater made available for this RFP in order to further refine the pricing for this RFP;
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 13 of 19
There are several previous reports available on the city’s project website:
Answer 37
http://www.brantford.ca/govt/projects/Pages/GreenwichMohawkSite.aspx
Question 38
The RFP defines subconsultants and subcontractors similarly; however, would we be required
to provide experience and qualifications for our subcontractors (specifically drillers,
laboratories, private locators, etc.);
Answer 38
The experience of subcontractors is not required.
Question 39
Have any of the foundations, bases of trenches or pits been removed?
Answer 39
Building foundations and floor slabs have not been removed. Any basements and pits on the
site have been filled in.
Question 40
If slab and foundations have been removed, are there any drawings/survey information of the
former footprints available for placement of new boreholes/monitoring wells?
Answer 40
Please see the Question and Answer 39.
Question 41
Have any underground utilities (hydro, storm sewer, sanitary, gas, telephone) been removed
during demolition activities?
Answer 41
No underground utilities have been removed during demolition activities.
Question 42
What is the current status of utilities? If utilities are still on Site, are there any drawings
available for review?
Answer 42
Active hydro, water, gas, and phone service are available to the Canadian Military Heritage
Museum building. The rest of 347 Greenwich Street, and all of 22 and 66 Mohawk Street do
not have active hydro, water, gas, and phone service. However the Consultant would be
required to confirm utility locates at the commencement of the Project.
The entire site is serviced by limited storm and sanitary lines.
Drawings of utility services are not available at this time.
Question 43
Have existing monitoring wells been preserved during demolition activities?
Answer 43
See Question and Answer 2.
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 14 of 19
Question 44
Is a final design drawing for the interceptor trench located at 66 Mohawk available for review?
Answer 44
The final design drawing for the interceptor trench located at 66 Mohawk is not available at
this time.
Question 45
Is the TH &B rail line to be considered as part of lands included within the scope of the current
RFP? Will it be included in Stage 3?
Answer 45
Please see Question and Answer 13.
Question 46
Page 4 of the RFP outlines that Part 2 " …will enable the redevelopment of the subject lands
for residential and park purposes", while on Page 39 it outlines the approval of a zoning Bylaw (#40-2009) for mixed use zoning which was appealed. Can the desired end land use be
confirmed by the City to ensure the scope is developed with the applicable SCS?
Answer 46
It is the intention of the City that when the remedial action plan is implemented, it will result in
filing RSCs for each of the properties to the residential and parkland standard. The current
Official Plan designation on the site allows for a range of uses including residential,
commercial, and park land uses. The proposed zoning (once the appeal is resolved) would
reflect the same uses. Currently, it is the City’s intent to clean the site to the residential and
parkland standard to permit the widest range of redevelopment options.
Question 47
If there are various land uses required on the Site, is a redevelopment/ current end use plan
available for review?
Answer 47
The current redevelopment concept plan that has council approval is attached.
Question 48
Will parceling of the lands within 30 m of the water course (Mohawk Canal) be considered
acceptable when undertaking the RSC process?
Answer 48
Upon review of further details, the City may consider parceling the lands.
Question 49
On page 39, the municipal funding has been outlined as being $34,895,322. What portion, if
any, is for redevelopment of the Site?
Answer 49
No portion of the approved funding of $34,895,322 is for the redevelopment of the site.
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 15 of 19
Question 50
Can details be given regarding how the December 31, 2016 date was derived?
Answer 50
The deadline of Dec. 31, 2016 was determined by the Federal Government, as per the
funding agreement with the City of Brantford.
Question 51
Does the completion date of December 31, 2016 pertain only to the remediation work or
completion of both the remedial works and the filing of the RSC?
Answer 51
The deadline of Dec. 31, 2016 pertains to the completion of the remediation and filing of the
RSCs for each of the three properties.
Question 52
For 22 Mohawk will the area be cleared of vegetation overgrowth prior to any field activities?
Answer 52
The City will work with the Proponent to cut the vegetation as required.
Question 53
Does the City have reliance on any of the environmental reports, and if so, does that reliance
extend to their consultants?
Answer 53
Please see Question and Answer 3.
Question 54
Were foundations, floor slabs, and/or basements removed during demolition of the site
buildings?
Answer 54
The foundations and floor slabs were not removed during the demolition of the buildings.
Basements and pits on the site were filled in.
Question 55
During review of the background reports it was noted that parts of the 11x17 figures and
tables were cut off in some reports (XCG, 2001 and Dames and Moore, 1999). In addition,
pages 2-13 were missing from the 2002 CD Sonter Report for 66 Mohawk Street. Will
complete copies of these reports be available for review by the successful bidder?
Answer 55
See Question and Answer 24.
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 16 of 19
During review of the background reports it was noted that there were additional environmental
investigations reported (see below) that were not provided on the City's website. Will copies of
these reports be available for review by the successful bidder?
1. Trow, 2002 as referenced in the Belko 2005 UST decommissioning report
Question 56
2. Phase I and II ESAs by XCG completed between 1997 and 2001 at 220 Mohawk as
referenced in Naylor, 2007.
3. Phase I and II ESA (October, 2006) by Naylor at 22 Mohawk as referenced by Naylor,
2007.
1. The Trow 2002 report is not available.
Answer 56
2. Please see Part B of this Addendum.
3. Please see Part B of this Addendum
Question 57
Will electronic data tables (e.g., excel spreadsheets) and electronic site/survey plans (e.g.,
AutoCad) be available to the successful bidder for any of the three properties?
Answer 57
Any electronic data tables and electronic site/survey plans that the City has will be available to
the Consultant.
Question 58
Are there USTs remaining on any of the three properties?
Answer 58
Information on any remaining underground storage tanks is unknown at this time. Further
investigation on this would be required of the Consultant.
Question 59
Can the City provide an estimate of the number of existing viable monitoring wells remaining
each of the properties?
Answer 59
Please see Question and Answer 2.
Question 60
The contract does not contain a waiver of consequential damages or a limitation of liability
clause - are clauses of this nature able to be added to the contract?
Answer 60
No, the City is not open to considering this at this time.
Question 61
Can "and in the aggregate" be added after "occurrence" in Clause 6.1.1 (Commercial General
Liability Insurance)?
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 17 of 19
Answer 61
No, the City will not accept an aggregate.
Question 62
Can "per claim" be added after "$2,000,000" in Clause 6.1.4 (Errors and Omission)?
Answer 62
Yes.
Question 63
Clause 7.4 - the warranty included in this clause is not appropriate or applicable for
professional services. Can this clause be deleted?
Answer 63
Yes. Proponents shall delete subsection 7.4 in its entirety.
Question 64
Clause 11.1 and 12.1 - we must be able to retain one copy of all information/materials relied
upon in our performance of the services for legal defence purposes, are these clauses able to
be changed to reflect this?
Answer 64
Yes. These clauses can be amended at the time of the execution of the Agreement.
END OF ADDENDUM NUMBER 2
RECEIPT OF ADDENDA MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED ON THE FORM OF PROPOSAL
Tina Iacoe, CPPO, CPPB
Manager of Purchasing
Purchasing Division – Finance Department
Addendum #2
RFP 13-99 Consultant Services for Remediation Strategy for Mohawk Greenwich
Page 18 of 19
Greenwich-Mohawk Streets
Brownfield Sites Remediation Study
Developing Land Use Options and Final Rehabilitation Strategy
Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd.
& Wiebe Engineering Group Inc.
File No.: H-P837
May 7, 2003
Page 6