|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1504
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
MA-010111-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
City of Greater Sudbury
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
In order to assist in understanding the nature of the request and subsequent appeal, it is important to provide some background information respecting the circumstances surrounding the creation of the records at issue in this appeal. The City of Greater Sudbury (the City) has outlined in detail the facts which gave rise to the request which I will set forth in order to provide some context to the appeal which arose from the original request. In December 1999, the Province of Ontario enacted The City of Greater Sudbury Act, 1999 which restructured the former municipalities of the City of Sudbury, Town of Valley East, Town of Nickel Centre, Town of Capreol, Town of Rayside-Balfour, Town of Walden, Town of Onaping Falls and the Regional Municipality of Sudbury. The Province also created a Transition Board for the new City of Greater Sudbury which was mandated to implement various transitional matters to ensure the smooth operation of the new City, which came into being on January 1, 2000. One of the matters undertaken by the Transition Board was to ensure proper insurance coverage for the new restructured municipality beginning on January 1, 2000. The Transition Board engaged the services of a consultant to review the insurance requirements of the new municipality and to assist in the acquisition process by preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) and an evaluation of the proposals received in response to the RFP. The Transition Board also established a working group which was made up of members of the Transition Board and selected employees who were either on secondment to the Transition Board or were employees of the former municipalities. The records which are the subject of this request and appeal were created or compiled by the Transition Board. The City then goes on to provide some further information with respect to the nature of an RFP and how the process which gives rise to responses to it differs from the tendering process often used by municipalities in similar situations. I am including this explanation in order to clarify what are, in fact, two very different kind of procedures followed by municipalities when purchasing goods or services. The City explains that a tender outlines the specifications of what and how something is to be supplied in such as way as to leave cost as the only variable for the bidders to submit. In such cases, the lowest bidder is then the one awarded the tender, in most cases. In the situation where the RFP process is followed, however, price is only one of many variables. An RFP is an invitation to a supplier to submit an offer which provides a solution to a problem or a need that the municipality has identified. The lowest price bid will not necessarily be the most cost effective one or offer the superior product. An RFP is a procurement process in which the judgment of the supplier's experience, qualifications and solution to the problem may take precedence over price alone. This process also gives bidders flexibility to provide alternatives that are, in fact, more economical without being limited to one specification. The City submits that this process is often followed when acquiring banking or auditing services, engineering or architectural consulting and insurance services as they do not lend themselves well to the price focussed tendering process. It adds that the acquisition of insurance services requires a more subjective and judgmental process, well suited to the use of RFPs. Addressing the specific nature of the acquisition of insurance services, the City indicates that "[M]unicipal insurance programs are not 'off the shelf' products" and that "such an insurance program will be individually designed to meet the needs of the municipality." It goes on to add that: Specifically, this means that coverages, policy limits and deductibles, which are all variables in any insurance program are optimally selected to reduce insurance costs and the costs of uninsured losses. Therefore, the successful bidder for municipal contracts will need to demonstrate through its proposal a thorough understanding of the unique nature of the business of local government and the risks associated with those activities, adherence to the municipality's specifications and competitive pricing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Donald Hale
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Jan 30, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|