Re: “Greenest city promise hit by regulator decision,” Dec. 9.
I just read Mike Klassen’s piece on Creative Energy and district heat in Vancouver. I notice that the Courier had inserted a revision at the beginning of the piece.
The revision suggests that Klassen was incorrect in stating that the city did not conduct a competitive bidding process prior to selecting Creative Energy as a monopoly space heat and hot water supplier for certain Vancouver neigbourhoods. I disagree. Klassen had that right.
The revision posted above Klassen’s article accurately reports that on Dec. 20, 2012, the City issued “Request for Expressions of Interest PS20121461, Neighbourhood Energy Concepts for Downtown Vancouver,” otherwise known as the REOI.
This REOI does not ask respondents to bid to supply a service at a price or with a fixed price-setting formula. REOIs don’t normally ask respondents to estimate the prices they intend to charge their customers if they are selected, and they were not asked to provide any such estimates in this case.
An REOI is normally a very preliminary step in a multi-stage competitive bidding process. The city usually uses an REOI to make a shortlist of qualified companies that will then be invited to participate in a competitive bidding process. This saves both the city and prospective bidders time and money. But, in this case, the city never executed the rest of the steps essential to make this a competitive bidding process.
This particular REOI process was also unusually lacking in established City of Vancouver tendering disciplines. The REOI lists the experience that the city would look for in qualified respondents. But, at the time they submitted their response, Creative Energy had no evident experience in five of the six fields the city listed.
Vancouver’s taxpayers are not allowed to know: how Creative Energy’s own lack of relevant experience compares to that of other respondents; if/how many other respondents would have willingly competed to acquire Central Heat, had the city been transparent that owning Central Heat was the key determinant of who would win those monopolies; or why city leadership decided not to execute to the next steps that are normal in competitive public tenders.
Due to the city’s decisions not to solicit business plan proposals, including competing Vancouver district heat ratepayer cost estimates, not to respect the qualification requirements outlined in its own RFEOI, and not to make competing estimates available for public consideration, this cannot, in any way, be described as an open or competitive bidding process.
Aldyen Donnelly, Vancouver
