LeBreton Flats 2.0 (RendezVous LeBreton) | Cancelled

[rocketphish]

Runner-up team attacks NCC's choice of RendezVous LeBreton

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: May 4, 2016 | Last Updated: May 4, 2016 7:02 PM EDT

The runner-up in the competition to redevelop LeBreton Flats is challenging the National Capital Commission‘s choice of the RendezVous LeBreton Group as the top-ranked proponent, warning that the NCC’s approach could “severely prejudice” the whole process.

In an email to the NCC released Wednesday, Debbie Bellinger, the lawyer for the Devcore Canderel DLS Group, raised a series of objections to last week’s decision by the NCC board to begin negotiations with RendezVous, a joint venture between Senators Sports & Entertainment and the Trinity Development Group.

Bellinger said DCDLS was “perplexed” about why RendezVous’s proposal was rated highest by an evaluation committee, based on the NCC’s stated objectives that the long-vacant lands should be developed for primarily non-residential uses, such as museums, galleries and special attractions.

RendezVous is proposing nearly 2,000 more residential units on LeBreton than DCDLS, while the runner-up team’s plan included a number of museums and attractions missing from the RendezVous bid.

DCDLS is further perplexed, Bellinger’s email says, by NCC statements that its officials hope to “lift the national prominence” of RendezVous’s public anchor uses – now principally an arena – during the planned negotiations.

“This allows one team to improve upon its proposal and to introduce elements that were not part of its formal submission,” she said. “Our position (is) the overall process will be severely prejudiced by that approach.”

The email notes that the NCC has said it was “particularly swayed” by the RendezVous proposal to cover the light rail transit line that will soon be built through LeBreton Flats.

DCDLS says it studied the feasibility of that option and concluded that it was “not economically viable, is technically difficult to implement and, more importantly, will result in significant delays in the planned opening for the Confederation Line of the LRT.”

Bellinger’s email further says DCDLS wrote the NCC prior to the public release of the two competing bids in January, alleging that RendezVous was holding public meetings with “leaders of the business community” in violation of strict confidentiality requirements.

However, her email says, there was no mention of that in NCC fairness monitor Louise Panneton’s report.

Bellinger also asked the NCC to inform RendezVous that it is not permitted to initiate discussions with any of DCDLS’s development partners, tenants and consultants.

“To the extent that the RendezVous LeBreton Group violates the foregoing, we will reserve all legal rights to insist that RendezVous LeBreton be disqualified,” her email says.

In response to Bellinger’s email, the NCC said it stands by the integrity of its solicitation process.

“Every aspect of the process and all communications with both proponents were monitored by the independent fairness monitors hired to oversee the competition and they have deemed the process to be fair, impartial and transparent,” said NCC spokesman Nick Galletti.

“We understand the disappointment of the DCDLS team, but the evaluation committee came to a clear result,” Galletti said. “RendezVous LeBreton ranked highest and have thus obtained the right to negotiate first with the NCC.”

Ken Villazor, an advisor to Ottawa Senators owner Eugene Melnyk, said RendezVous had no comment on the DCDLS email.

In her email, Bellinger asked the NCC to immediately release the results of the evaluation committee’s scoring to DCDLS under a strict confidentiality agreement. The NCC doesn’t intend to release those scores until the federal cabinet signs off on a development agreement in 2017 or later.

Daniel Peritz, a vice-president at Canderel, said DCDLS, which he likened to “a lady in waiting,” wants the scores so members of its team understand “what were the things that we need perhaps to be contemplating while we’re waiting, to prepare ourselves for an eventual negotiation with the NCC.”

Peritz said DCDLS decided to release the email because neither it nor RendezVous are able to speak publicly about their bids after midnight Wednesday.

“We saw no reason not to share the valid concerns we shared with the NCC with the public at large, so people could understand where we’re coming from.”

He said the NCC has promised to respond to DCDLS’s email, but had not done so as of late Wednesday.

While DCDLS is willing to remain involved in the LeBreton procurement for now, Bellinger’s email said the group will “revisit its position from time to time, based on its assessment of where things stand.”

[email protected]
twitter.com/ButlerDon

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ebreton-by-ncc

[waterloowarrior]

scoring system

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Runner-up team attacks NCC's choice of RendezVous LeBreton

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: May 4, 2016 | Last Updated: May 4, 2016 7:02 PM EDT

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ebreton-by-ncc

Sore losers. If only they had included a kitchen sink...

[lrt's friend]

This was inevitable especially with the winning bid considering to borrow ideas from the losing bid.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

scoring system

So devcore probably wins design excellence and maybe public anchor use, rendez-vouz probably wins non public anchor use, year-round animation and viability, delivery model and risk management. Everything else is probably a draw.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Is there some limitation that prevents RV from changing its proposal in any manner that could be perceived as "stealing" from the DC proposal? In other words, does DC have some sort of "exclusivity" on the "aquarium at Lebreton" idea?

Nope, this is Devcore playing the public. There is never a restriction in any competitive process that would prevent the lead proponent from improving their bid during the negotiation stage. And here, it's pretty clearly in the public interest to do that.

Now Devcore could have some sort of exclusivity window in its contract with Ripley's, but that is a private contractual matter and has nothing to do with the NCC or RV.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This was inevitable especially with the winning bid considering to borrow ideas from the losing bid.

Not at all. Winning bidders often borrow ideas, and often the RFP documents clearly allow the organization doing the procurement to do that.

You can't steal IP from a third party, but the idea of an aquarium does not belong to Devcore.

[acottawa]

This would be interesting

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ch...-idUSKCN0XU1VM

[Richard Eade]

I have to agree with Devcore. Looking at those categories there is too much room for points being assigned arbitrarily. Also, some of the features/deficiencies could be counted in more than one category.

- Market Rationale: Devcore 40; RVL 30

- Public Anchor: Devcore had many more public facilities than RVL. Granted, some may have not appealed to everyone, but the number of anchors was significant; and remember, these included a major store and a school and a public library. RVL had the Sensplex and Abilities Centre but no library – it was not included on the parcel of land and was just a suggestion as to where someone else could put it. This item should have clearly been dominated by the Devcore bid. I would say, 30 to 15 in Devcore’s favour.

- Non-Public Anchor: RVL had more condo and office offerings than Devcore did. Devcore had some of its office space buried within some of its ‘attractions’. RVL would have taken this item 15 to 10.

- Development Plans: Devcore 20; RVL 27

- Design Excellence: Here RVL would have pulled in more points for covering the LRT and providing much better connectivity within the area. The splitting of the area done by Devcore likely got a low score. Say, 15 for RVL and 8 for Devcore.

- Year-Round Animation: RVL should not have scored as high as Devcore on this item. RVL mentioned skating on the viaduct for winter use, which should trump Devcore’s garden walk, which is likely not a winter attraction. However, most ice rinks are not very active during the summer so the RVL plan would offer only sporadic crowds. So, 5 for Devcore and 2 for RVL.

- Phasing Approach: Both plans were putting their ‘public’ attractions in their first phase. RVL was talking about its arena and Devcore was talking about attractions. This could be an arbitrary vote, based on what the graders wanted first. I would give 5 to each.

- Viability: Here the RVL has the upper-hand because they are likely to have a more profitable outcome from their plan. The Devcore plan takes more chances by suggesting many ‘attractions’ that might not work out. RVL should get 5 and Devcore 2

- Decommissioning and Sustainability Strategies: Devcore 10; RVL 10

- Decommissioning: I doubt that the decommissioning of the existing arena in Kanata entered into this decision, but it should have. RVL is moving an existing use while Devcore is building new uses. Anyway, I expect that the NCC was NCC-centric and only thought about the remediation of the soil under the area being developed. Since both bidders will need to do pretty much the same thing, this has to be a tie (although I would think of the bigger picture and give Devcore the edge). Both get 10.

- Transportation Plan: Devcore 3; RVL 5

- Transportation: Obviously this goes to RVL because of its better connectivity within the area. However, Devcore does get points for a more pedestrian viewpoint. RVL scores 5 and Devcore 3.

- Servicing Plan: Devcore 5; RVL 5

- Servicing: This will be even with 5 point each.

- Delivery Model: Devcore 28; RVL 30

- Ownership: The RVL bid has experience running an arena and Sensplexes, while I don’t think that Devcore has run an Auto Centre before. That said, I think that either group is fully capable of doing what they bid. 10 for each.

- Financial: I do not expect an issue for either group getting funding. 10 for each.

- Business Terms: Some of Devcore’s ‘attractions’ might not have the staying power that they hope for. This would lower their score slightly. In my view. RVL gets 10 and Devcore gets 8.

- Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategies: Devcore 8; RVL 10

- Risk: Again, I think that there might be a bit more risk with some of Devcore’s ‘attractions’. Devcore gets 8 and RVL gets 10.

So, based on my rough evaluation, RVL does win the right to have the discussion with the NCC first; with 117/140. This edges out the Devcore bid that I give 114/140. Differences come from the better connectivity of the RVL plan, including the covering of the LRT line. The other difference is some doubt about the viability of some of the ‘attractions’ that Devcore has proposed.

The scoring could have been altered by not having a feature/deficit affect more than one category. For example, the imagined viability of some of Devcore's 'attractions' shows up in the Business Terms and in the Risk Assessment. The RVL's better connectivity shown up in the Design Excellence and the Transportation Plan.

I did find it interesting that there do not appear to be any points directly given for the proposals having any nationally significant additions; one of the prime requirements that the NCC wanted.

[phil235]

^^^^Don't forget that what we have is just the allocation of points, not the detailed scoring grid. The detailed scoring grid used by the evaluators would have more specifics as to where and how points would be awarded and would eliminate some of the arbitrariness that you are complaining about.

Devcore probably hasn't seen that, nor have they seen the scoring, so it's hard to take their complaints seriously.

[harls]

I hadn't been to the flats in a while, until last week. That Booth street bridge looks pretty impressive.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I have to agree with Devcore. Looking at those categories there is too much room for points being assigned arbitrarily. Also, some of the features/deficiencies could be counted in more than one category.


- Delivery Model: Devcore 28; RVL 30

- Ownership: The RVL bid has experience running an arena and Sensplexes, while I don’t think that Devcore has run an Auto Centre before. That said, I think that either group is fully capable of doing what they bid. 10 for each.

- Financial: I do not expect an issue for either group getting funding. 10 for each.

- Business Terms: Some of Devcore’s ‘attractions’ might not have the staying power that they hope for. This would lower their score slightly. In my view. RVL gets 10 and Devcore gets 8.

- Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategies: Devcore 8; RVL 10

- Risk: Again, I think that there might be a bit more risk with some of Devcore’s ‘attractions’. Devcore gets 8 and RVL gets 10.

Not sure about giving devcore a near-perfect score given the large number of question marks.

Devcore was proposing a lot of expenses (capital and operating) in the early phases with few sources of revenue. Many of the attractions had no identified partners and when they did identify a partner, they were vague about what role the partner was going to play. For example, was Ripley's prepared to finance the aquarium themselves, were they going to operate it if someone else built it, were they consultants, etc? When they did talk about a funding model, they were often unconventional (for example, the communications museum was supposed to be funded by the rent media companies would pay to have facilities in the building) and therefore higher risk. What surprises me is Devcore almost totally ignored this category in their presentation, in their literature, etc. despite being a big chunk of the overall scoring.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So devcore probably wins design excellence and maybe public anchor use, rendez-vouz probably wins non public anchor use, year-round animation and viability, delivery model and risk management. Everything else is probably a draw.

Devcore had some features that were definitely very high quality. But they also had stuff in there that was really uninspiring and, in some instances, even bad. I'm thinking specifically of the integration with the existing community and the design of the residential component.

[J.OT13]

Rich how it was O.K. for Devcore to add an arena at the 11th hour before the bids were submitted, an arena for a hockey team their opponents own. Also love how they were trying to negotiate the team playing at LB if DCDLS won with a new proposal every day:

1. We'll lease the arena to Melnyk;
2. We'll buy the team from Melnyk;
3. We'll let Melnyk build his own arena;
4. We'll give a piece of the pie to Melnyk for his arena and associated development (condos, offices).

My favorite is the last one; basically saying "we'll drop a whole corner of our proposal to appease you (Melnyk)". If that's not ground for disqualification, I don't know what is?

They pulled a whole lot of other sh** like talking about their proposal back in December and using Molson's brand without their permission.

[rocketphish]

Little chance of aquarium on LeBreton Flats, Melnyk adviser says

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: May 4, 2016 | Last Updated: May 4, 2016 5:32 PM EDT

An aquarium will almost certainly not be part of RendezVous LeBreton’s plan to redevelop LeBreton Flats, an adviser to Eugene Melnyk said Wednesday.

“It’s highly, highly unlikely that we would ever pursue that,” Ken Villazor said in an interview. “Based on our understanding of what the numbers would be, at this stage it doesn’t appear to us that it’s a financially viable attractor.”

The National Capital Commission’s board voted last week to begin negotiations with RendezVous LeBreton after its bid was rated more highly by an evaluation committee than a competing proposal from the Devcore Canderel DLS Group.

Villazor’s comments effectively repudiated statements made Tuesday by Fred Waks, president of Trinity Development Group, the co-developer with Senators Sports and Entertainment of the RendezVous proposal.

In an interview with the Citizen, Waks identified the Ripley’s Aquarium as one of the elements of the DCDLS plan that was attractive to RendezVous.

Waks said John Ruddy, Trinity’s founder and executive chairman, would “probably be reaching out” to DCDLS after consulting his RendezVous partners.

But Villazor called Waks statement “inaccurate,” saying RendezVous is unable to do that because “we’re still very much in the procurement phase of this project. There will be no reaching out to the DCDLS Group during this period.”

To this point, Villazor said, there have been “zero conversations” within the RendezVous team about moving some of DCDLS’s elements into its bid.

“We have no interest in integrating an aquarium into our submission. It wouldn’t serve us well to bring in an attractor element and then see it fail.

“And we’re certainly not looking at any elements that are currently within the DCDLS bid to incorporate into ours,” he emphasized.

In an email to the NCC released Wednesday, DCDLS asked the NCC to order RendezVous not to talk to or solicit any of its development partners, tenants and consultants. That prohibition, DCDLS said, was “a condition of our remaining in the process.”

[email protected]
twitter.com/ButlerDon

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...spokesman-says

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This would be interesting

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ch...-idUSKCN0XU1VM

Not as interesting as an automotive museum.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Little chance of aquarium on LeBreton Flats, Melnyk adviser says

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...spokesman-says

Of course they'll say this... they don't want to make any of the DCDLS ideas seem remotely viable. It was a strategic mistake to initially suggest that they might look into including an aquarium as well.

[migo]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Sore losers. If only they had included a kitchen sink...

DCDLS: Kitchen sink?!?! Oh! I thought the NCC wanted kitchen stink...!

[rocketphish]

City mum on LRT impacts at LeBreton Flats

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: May 6, 2016 | Last Updated: May 6, 2016 5:34 PM EDT



RendezVous LeBreton wants to cover the city’s LRT line through LeBreton Flats, but the city is silent about how it would affect its $2.1-billion transit system.

The development consortium, headed by the Ottawa Senators, proposes to build over the LRT tracks to make sure the rail corridor doesn’t divide the site. The National Capital Commission lauded the consortium for including the plan to cover the tracks. It’s one of the big reasons why RendezVous LeBreton won the negotiation rights to develop the site.

The city, however, isn’t saying much about how constructing above and around the rail line would affect LRT service, which begins in spring 2018. Shovels aren’t expected to go into the ground at LeBreton Flats until after the transit line opens.

Postmedia requested an interview from the city to explore the issues of constructing over the city’s LRT line, operating trains during construction and collecting potential air rights fees.

The city has the “air rights” – or development rights – in the space above the LRT line. Allowing someone to build over city property usually comes with a pricetag.

The city said it could only provide the following written statement from acting deputy city manager John Moser: “Discussions are ongoing regarding the redevelopment of LeBreton Flats. The City of Ottawa is acting as a technical resource, as required.”

The city also resisted commenting on the LRT treatments in February when RendezVous LeBreton and Devcore Canderel DLS had their proposals open to public scrutiny.

With RendezVous selected as the NCC’s preferred consortium, the city will need to consider to how the LRT will operate through LeBreton Flats when a developer wants to build over the tracks.

“The air rights are valuable over light rail,” Somerset Coun. Catherine McKenney said.

McKenney, whose ward includes LeBreton Flats, said residents will be interested in knowing how construction will affect LRT service through the site. The nature of the procurement process by the NCC, where there are windows of opportunity to speak publicly about the LeBreton Flats proposals, makes it difficult to get more information, McKenney said.

Further complicating matters is a letter sent by DCDLS to the NCC this week questioning the agency’s decision to negotiate with RendezVous LeBreton. In the letter, DCDLS reveals it looked into covering the LRT line but determined it was “not economically viable, is technically difficult to implement and, more importantly, will result in significant delays in the planned opening for the Confederation Line of the LRT.”

It’s hard to imagine a scenario where the city would allow its LRT launch in 2018 to be delayed because of development at LeBreton Flats. A RendezVous LeBreton official suggested to Postmedia in February that closing the LRT line for construction on the site wouldn’t happen.

Ata Khan, a Carleton University engineering professor with an expertise in transportation, said it’s possible to cover the rail line without disrupting operations.

“If air rights can be given, everything is doable,” Khan said Friday.

Khan said the city needs to be careful about negotiating air rights, keeping in mind potential expansion in the future.

“There’s a certain amount of right-of-way that should be given for the LRT line so that the buildings are not constraining future developments of the LRT line,” Khan said.

A program needs to be developed to make sure there are no impacts to the transportation system, Khan said.

“It’s just a question of laying down the rules, developing good criteria, following good practices. It can be done,” he said.

The city has already dealt with above-rail development in the case of Carleton University’s new parking garage over the Trillium Line. According to the term sheet obtained through an access-to-information request, the city granted permission to the air rights for a “nominal cost” and some property interests. Trillium Line trains had to be suspended on weekends to allow the university to finish the work in late 2013.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...lebreton-flats

[HighwayStar]

and.... let the games begin...