SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-454099
DATE: 20120605
RE: CO-UP TOWING SERVICES LTD. Plaintiff
AND:
TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD, Defendant
AND:
J P TOWING SERVICE & STORAGE LTD., Respondent
BEFORE: J. Wilson J.
COUNSEL:
Doug Laframboise , for the Plaintiff
Graham Rempe , for the Defendant, Toronto Police Services Board
Kevin D. Toyne , Sean Clarke, for the Respondent
HEARD: June 1, 2012
ENDORSEMENT
[ 1 ] Co-up Towing Services Ltd.(Co-up) brings this motion to prevent the Toronto Police Services Board (the Board) from executing a contract for vehicle towing and pound services (the Contract) with J.P. Towing Service & Storage Ltd. (J.P. Towing). The Contract was awarded in response to a Request for Quotation for District 1 in the City of Toronto for towing services which closed March 5, 2012.
[ 2 ] It is the position of the Board that the bid submitted by Co-up was deficient in several respects, and that Co-up was properly disqualified from the bidding process. The Contract is to be awarded to J.P Towing, as it was the only other bidder for District 1 services.
[ 3 ] If the bid of Co-up was correctly determined by the Board to be deficient, Co-up acknowledges that it has no status to challenge the execution of the Contract.
[ 4 ] The Board issued a detailed Request for Quotation on February 3, 2012 (RFQ). An eligible bid must comply with the several conditions imposed in the RFQ.
[ 5 ] The Board concluded that the Co-up bid was non compliant as it failed to provide:
• A letter of credit in the name of Co-up confirming credit for the bidder in the minimum amount of $100,000.00.
• Enforceable leases or options to lease for the proposed pound location and for the required towing equipment, and
• Licences in the name of the bidder for the proposed pound location
[ 6 ] This is the first time that Co-up has submitted a bid to the Board. The Board had a meeting with those interested in submitting bids prior to the March 5, 2012 deadline, to explain the bidding process, and to confirm that the prerequisite conditions for documentation accompanying any bid would be strictly enforced. Unfortunately, a representative from Co-up was not at that meeting.
[ 7 ] From a review of the documents submitted by Co-up, clearly there were several deficiencies of a substantial nature. A glaring deficiency was that the letter of credit was in the name of a principal of Co-up, but not submitted in the bidder’s name. As well, the documents submitted for the lease of the pound, or the lease of the vehicles were not legally enforceable and binding, nor were they signed by two parties.
[ 8 ] It is unfortunate that the applicant was disqualified for non-compliance, as their bid was lower than the bid accepted by the Board with J.P. Towing. However, I conclude that the Board acted properly throughout, and treated all applicants responding to bids in the six districts of Toronto with consistency. All of the other bids submitted were in compliance with the stipulated pre-conditions in the RFQ.
[ 9 ] I have heard submissions from counsel as to costs. I conclude that there shall be no order as to costs in favour of the Board payable by the applicants. Costs fixed payable by the applicant to J.P. Towing in the amount of $1700.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.
J. Wilson J.
Date: June 5, 2012