ADDENDUM NO. 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO CLOSING: 12:00 NOON (LOCAL TIME), SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 (REVISED)

Transcription

1 Michael Pacholok Director Purchasing and Materials Management Division City Hall, 18 th Floor, West Tower 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 Allison Phillips Manager Professional Services September 2, 2015 Posted in PDF (11 pages) ADDENDUM NO. 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO CLOSING: 12:00 NOON (LOCAL TIME), SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 (REVISED) For: Parks and Public Realm Plan - TOcore Please refer to the above Request for Proposal (RFP) document in your possession and be advised of the following: I. Closing Deadline and Deadline for Questions 1. Closing Deadline is extended to 12:00 Noon (local Toronto time), September 29, This change shall cascade to Appendix C: Standard Submission Forms, as appropriate. 2. Deadline for Questions (must be in writing) is extended to 12:00 Noon, September 14, II. Revisions 1. Refer to Section 2.1 Purpose - replace in its entirety with the following (Please note: new expertise, additional component and change to budget range): The purpose of this RFP is to select a qualified consultant team to assist the City Planning Division and the Parks, Forestry & Recreation Division, in collaboration with the Transportation Services Division, to prepare a Parks and Public Realm Plan (PPR Plan) for Downtown Toronto ( the Study ). The PPR Plan will include active transportation and surface transit elements. The Proponent should assemble a team of qualified professionals with expertise in parks and public realm master planning, landscape architecture, urban forestry, public life studies, transportation planning, public engagement, spatial analysis & GIS, 3-dimensional illustrations, and project management. For the purposes of this RFP process and any resulting agreement, the consultant team should be represented by a lead consultant or "Prime Proponent" that shall be responsible for the performance of the work required under the agreement by the consultant team (the Work or the Assignment ). The main components of the Assignment include: (i) developing a Parks and Public Realm Plan for Downtown; (ii) conducting a Public Life Study at strategic locations throughout the Downtown; (iii) preparing a Downtown Park Summary Report; (iv) generating a Vision for the Transformation of King Street; and, (v) recommending Implementation Strategies. 1

2 The City's budget range for this Assignment is between $550,000 and $600,000 (excluding HST). Please note that this amount is only an approximation and does not reflect the total amount that will be paid to any Vendor. This amount is for information only and should not form the basis of costing in a Proponent s submission. 2. Refer to Section Relevant Policies, Plans, Guidelines and Parallel Initiatives replace the first paragraph with the following: This Assignment shall be carried out within the context of the City of Toronto s policy and planning framework for Downtown Toronto, as well as studies and initiatives that are underway related to parks, urban forestry, public realm, active transportation and surface transit. 3. Refer to Section 3.2 Objectives add the following as an additional, fifth objective: 5. To prepare a King Street Visioning Study, focused on improving the movement function and public realm design for King Street through a transformational vision to create great transit and a great street, that will: a. engage the public and key stakeholder groups in re-imagining the King Street corridor; b. be informed by relevant international best practices; c. develop a vision and guiding principles to bring about the evolution and transformation of the street from its current condition to the realization of the vision, recognizing the diverse and varying character of various segments of the street; and d. generate a series of ideas and alternative solutions to the design and operation of King Street to realize the vision, accompanied by compelling and accurate visual representations of the alternatives, to inform public and key stakeholder engagement and to serve as an input to modelling for King Street. 4. Refer to Section 3.3 Assignment Phasing replace in its entirety with the following: The Key Tasks listed in Section 3.4 are generally organized in three phases: Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Task 1: Work Program Task 2: Background & Analysis Task 3: Public Life Study Task 4: Vision, Guiding Principles, Concept Plan & Priorities Task 5: King Street Visioning Study Task 6: Parks and Public Realm Plan Task 7: Implementation Strategy Public engagement and stakeholder consultation is cross-cutting for all phases of Work. These Phases and Tasks are intended to structure the Assignment and are not necessarily meant to be sequential. Tasks 2 through 7 in particular may overlap with one another. Proponents are encouraged to recommend their own approach to carrying out the Work. In their submissions, Proponents shall ensure that Task 5: King Street Visioning Study is undertaken as early as possible during the assignment, i.e. late 2015 into early 2016, to align with planned transit/traffic modelling on the corridor. 2

3 5. Refer to Section 3.4 Key Tasks under Task 1C: General Project Management and Meeting Schedules replace bullets 2 through 4 in paragraph 5 with the following: 5 Technical Advisory Committee meetings 5 meetings with the overall TOcore public engagement consultant 4 public presentations of lectures (over and above those as part of the public and stakeholder engagement process) to be given by a key senior professional on the Vendor s team. 6. Refer to Section 3.4 Key Tasks add an additional task: Task 1 F: King Street Visioning Study Design Based on input received during the Work Program Workshop (Task 1B), the Consultant will develop a Study Design to confirm the approach and methodology for developing the vision for the transformation of King Street. The Study Design will confirm the study process and schedule, including the integration of public and stakeholder engagement in the process (Task 1E) and linkages to the Public Space Analysis and Public Life Study Designs (Task 1D). The Study Design will also confirm the data collection and analysis and precedent-based case study research the Consultant is to undertake. 7. Refer to Section 3.4 Key Tasks, TASK 1 DELIVERABLES add an additional bullet to the Work Program Report: King Street Visioning Study Design 8. Refer to Section 3.4 Key Tasks add a new task as follows: TASK 5: KING STREET VISIONING STUDY The objective of this task is to develop a transformational vision for King Street and generate design ideas to improve streetcar operations, enhance the identity of this significant street and its neighbourhoods, and promote walking through significant, innovative place-making initiatives and improvements to the public realm. The vision and design ideas will be accompanied by goals, objectives, and guiding principles, and will be illustrated with compelling, accurate, graphically-rich visuals demonstrating the potential transformation that could occur. The King Street corridor includes that portion of the street within the study boundaries (Section 3.1), and should also include the segment to the west of Downtown from Bathurst to the rail corridor (Garrison Common). By way of background, King Street is a one of the major east-west streets crossing the Downtown core. Historically, King Street was the most important east-west street in the Old Town of York. It was the address for significant public buildings including St. Lawrence Hall, St. James Cathedral, and the Courthouse, and it was the street for retail and commercial institutions. In 1871, the third street railway in Toronto opened on King Street from the Don River to Bathurst Street. As the city grew, King Street remained a significant address for commercial development; banks and insurance companies settled between Bay and Toronto Streets, and large factories and warehouses emerged to the east and west of this district. By the late 1920s when the Stock Exchange moved to Bay Street, the intersection of King and Bay Streets emerged as the centre of the Canadian banking industry. It remains the heart of the Financial District and the largest concentration of jobs in the Greater Toronto Area. Transformed by the King-Spadina and King-Parliament regeneration planning initiatives in the 1990s, the industrial and warehouse districts on the east and west shoulders of the Financial District 3

4 redeveloped into vital, intensively urban, mixed-use districts. King Street with its streetcar has reinvented itself as the main street of these vital urban districts, with concentrations of theatres, nightclubs, restaurants and hotels. King Street is currently designed as a two-way, four-lane major street with streetcar tracks in the two centre lanes, and sidewalks occupying the remainder of the 20-metre public right-of-way. West of Spadina Avenue, the right-of-way widens to 23 metres, allowing for wider sidewalks. King Street travels through a highly urbanized environment, with building faces constructed to the sidewalk for much of its length. The 504 King streetcar route is the busiest surface transit route in the City, carrying over 60,000 riders on an average weekday. The streetcar currently operates in mixed traffic with transit signal priority at intersections, sharing the street with about 20,000 vehicles each day. Streetcar operations currently suffer from slow travel speeds, delays caused by traffic signals and turning vehicles, unreliable headways and frequency leading to bunching, and general overcrowding of vehicles. Some operational and regulatory initiatives have already been implemented to improve streetcar service on King Street. These have included extending peak period traffic regulations (i.e. turning and parking restrictions and prohibitions), and instituting a proof-of-payment fare collection policy together with all-door boarding of streetcars. Other initiatives are underway or soon to commence, such as Transportation Services' review of transit signal priority technologies and algorithms, and their transit/traffic modelling study of the 504 King streetcar route to understand the impact of further operational and design changes to the corridor. The vision developed in this study is intended to inform the modelling and vice-versa. Major cities around the world are recognizing the importance of critical surface transit corridors and implementing innovative design solutions to improve transit operations and create unique public places. This study provides an opportunity to reimagine the movement function and public realm design of King Street through a transformational vision that will create great transit and a great street for Toronto. The study will be informed by public engagement and enriched by ideas generated during the consultation process. In the context of the vision and guiding principles being developed for the Downtown public realm in general, the Consultant will work together with City staff and key stakeholders to develop a more focused vision for the future transformation of King Street. The vision will recognize the importance of King Street as both a series of places and a corridor for movement, considering both operational changes and physical modifications to King Street to create transformational improvements to streetcar operations and the pedestrian experience. In recognition of the diverse and changing character of King Street through the Downtown and the west of Downtown, the vision shall focus on segments of the street sharing a similar character such as the Entertainment District, Financial District, Old Town Toronto, King East Design District, and Garrison Common. Using the team's expertise in transportation planning, placemaking and public realm design, the Consultant will provide leadership to facilitate the generation of ideas supporting the vision from members of the public, key stakeholders and City staff. The King Street Visioning Study will include the following components (with the suggested percentage of resources for this component, dedicated to each activity, noted in parentheses): Engage the public and key stakeholder groups (10%) The Consultant will engage the public and key stakeholder groups in re-imagining the King Street corridor for improved movement and place-making, as determined through Task 1E. Review of Background Information (5%) The Consultant will review and gain a comprehensive understanding of relevant background information, including staff reports on 4

5 previous transit priority initiatives, media reports about transit service on King Street, Official Plan policies, the Streetscape Manual, Complete Streets Guidelines, Vibrant Streets Guidelines, traffic by-laws, transportation data and models, and TTC ridership statistics and operating data. Data Collection and Analysis (10%) The Consultant will use existing data already developed through TOcore, and may be required undertake a limited amount of strategic data collection and analysis of existing conditions on King Street related to transit operations, traffic operations and land use to provide empirical support and evidence for the vision being developed. Data collection and analysis will be confirmed during the Study Design. Research on International Best Practices (10%) The Consultant will undertake international research on best practices related to the planning, design and implementation of similar transformational movement and place-making initiatives as those being considered for King Street. The research should include case studies from major cities around the work, with a focus on North American and European cities. Proponents should identify at least 5 projects that will form the basis for their research. Case studies will be confirmed during the Study Design, to help inform and prove concepts to be developed. Develop Vision and Guiding Principles (20%) Working with the public and key stakeholders, the Consultant will develop a fully-articulated vision statement for King Street, describing the role and function the street should perform in the future, and the evolution and transformation of the street from its current condition to the realization of the vision. The vision statement will include goals, objectives and guiding principles needed to realize the vision, and will be richly illustrated with compelling graphics to convey key messages. The vision will consider King Street from the perspective of both a series of places and as a corridor for movement, and other perspectives brought forth by the public and stakeholders. The vision will recognize the diverse and varying character of King Street, and may develop segments as areas of focus in the Financial District, Entertainment District, Old Town Toronto, King East Design District, and Garrison Common. The vision should be informed by the existing Complete Streets guiding principles. Idea Generation and Visualization (40%) Using their expertise in transportation planning, place-making and public realm design, the Consultant will facilitate the generation of ideas to develop alternative solutions to the design and operation of King Street that will realize the vision. Ideas should consider the desired treatment and allocation of space for different modes of travel in the corridor through a range of segment design ideas, and key locations for various place-making initiatives. The Consultant will develop a series of compelling and accurate visual representations of the alternatives developed during the idea generation stage, including drawings, sketches and 3-dimensional renderings. The ideas generated may inform concurrent and future modelling work for King Street. Documentation (5%) The Consultant will integrate the final vision statement (including goals, objectives and guiding principles), ideas generated for alternative design solutions, and visual representations illustrating the vision and alternatives, into the Parks & Public Realm Plan. 8. Refer to Section 3.4 Key Tasks re-number existing Task 5 and Task 6 as follows: TASK 6: PARKS AND PUBLIC REALM PLAN TASK 7: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 5

6 9. Refer to Section 3.4 Key Tasks, Task 5: Parks and Public Realm Plan revise bullet 4 under Key Strategies to read: Streetscapes: place-making and movement priorities on streets; landmark streets; and transit-priority streets, with a focus on King Street 10. Refer to Section 3.5 Summary of Deliverables add the following as a new Task 5 and renumber subsequent Task headings accordingly: TASK 5: KING STREET VISIONING STUDY The King Street Visioning Study Report will at minimum contain: Background Overview of planning context and history (including previous initiatives) Best Practices Case studies summarizing the international research on best practices, including maps, drawings and photographs to illustrate the example Vision and Guiding Principles A fully-articulated vision statement accompanied by compelling visuals that illustrate the transformation on King Street, along with the goals, objectives and guiding principles related to the vision Idea Generation Written and graphic descriptions of alternatives developed to realize the vision Public Consultation Summary Summary of public and stakeholder comments and input Next Steps Summary of additional work needed to evaluate and implement the vision PowerPoint slide deck with compelling graphics and visuals summarizing the study background and process, final vision statement and ideas generated through the study, and all other work undertaken to support the development of the final product. 11. Refer to Section The Consultant replace paragraph 2 with the following: The following is an indicative weighting of team level of effort (LOE), provided to Proponents as guidance in forming their teams: Expertise Weighting of overall team LOE % Parks and public realm master planning 20 Landscape architecture 20 Urban forestry 5 Public life studies 20 Transportation planning 10 Public engagement 10 Spatial analysis & GIS + Illustrator 10 Project management 5 Total Refer to Section 4.3 Schedule of Events replace in its entirety with (note the changes to the dates): Milestone Date Issue Date July 31, 2015 Voluntary Information Meeting August 19, 2015 (10:00 am local Toronto time) Deadline for Proponent Questions September 14, 2015 (12:00 pm local Toronto time) 6

7 Last Day for Issuing an Addendum (if required) September 17, 2015 RFP Closing Date September 29, 2015 (12:00 pm local Toronto time) Interviews (if necessary) October 13 & 14, 2015 (9:00 am-12:00 pm local Toronto time) Date evaluation expected to be complete October 19, 2015 Approval and Recommendation to award date October 26, 2015 Contract Start Date November 2, 2015 This schedule is subject to change at the discretion of the City and appropriate written notice of any changes will be provided where feasible. 13. Refer to Section 5.2 Proposal Documentation and Delivery in section c) and add the following: (viii) A sample of a 3-dimensional streetscape renderings as per addendum No. 2, Revision 14 (ix) The per-unit cost of a 3-dimensional rendering of a proposed streetscape and/or other public space improvement as per Addendum No. 2, Revision 15 completed as indicated (Mandatory) For items (vii) and (viii), if this information is not submitted within the Proposal submission at the time of closing, the Proponent must, upon request of the City and within three (3) days, provide this information completed as indicated. Failure to provide this information within the requested timeframe will result in the Proposal being found non-compliant and the Proposal submission will not be evaluated further. 14. Refer to Section 5.3 Proposal Content in Subsection 3 - Experience and Qualifications of the Proponent, add the following to bullet number 1 in the first paragraph: Appendix F - The Project Experience Form shall be completed for the Illustrator and the Proponent shall include in the appendix of their Proposal Submission a sample of 3-dimensional streetscape renderings. 15. Refer to Section 5.3 Proposal Content in Subsection 7 - Cost of Services, C. Optional and/or Additional Pricing, add the following: Proponents shall provide the per-unit cost of a 3-dimensional rendering of a proposed streetscape and/or other public space improvement. This is for information only and will not be used to evaluate the cost of services in Stage 4 of Appendix E Proposal Evaluation Table. The use of this per-unit cost is at the sole discretion of the City. PER-UNIT COST OF A 3-DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OF A PROPOSED STREETSCAPE AND/OR OTHER PUBLIC SPACE IMPROVEMENT $ 16. Refer to Appendix E: Proposal Evaluation Table replace in its entirety with the following: EVALUATION CRITERIA STAGE 1 Mandatory Requirements as per Section 5.2 Compliance with Mandatory Submission Requirements AVAILABLE POINTS Pass/Fail 7

8 STAGE 2 Detailed Evaluation as per Section Quality of the Proposal i) Overall submission quality ii) Completeness and compliance with all RFP requirements iii) Proponent s understanding of the Study, the Study area and requirements of the RFP 2. Experience and Qualifications of the Proponent i) Quality and applicability of past projects completed by the Prime Proponent (and sub-consultants, if any) within the mature urban fabric of a large city ii) Experience and skills of proposed team members relevant to the Study: Parks and public realm master planning Landscape architecture Urban forestry Public life studies Transportation planning (specifically with a focus on active transportation, street design and an understanding of transit and traffic operations) Public engagement Spatial analysis & GIS Illustrator (capable of developing compelling, accurate, 3- dimensional representations of streetscape and public space improvements) iii) Suitability of the roles assigned to team members for the successful completion of this Study in relation to past projects completed and roles assigned iv) Experience of the Project Lead in managing major consulting studies with large municipalities and leading multi-disciplinary teams to produce compelling, coherent and appropriate sets of findings, options, plans and recommendations v) Demonstrated experience producing well-written reports using plain language supported by accessible visual graphics and mapping, including 3-D renderings. vi) Experience working with City of Toronto staff on a cross-divisional basis 3. Proposed Approach i) A vision for the Study that advances transformative and collaborative citybuilding ii) A overall approach that is bold, innovative and creative yet strategically valuable, effective, cost-efficient and achievable iii) An approach to engagement that can spark the imagination and involvement of the public, key stakeholder groups and partners iv) An evidence-based approach to advancing placemaking, public life, active transportation and surface transit. 4. Proposed Work Program i) Work program and timing of activities and deliverables ii) Appropriate allocation of staff time and resources corresponding to the tasks and deliverables identified in Section 3.0 of the RFP iii) Team organization (roles/specialties clearly defined, logical reporting path and co-ordination of sub-consultants (if any)) iv) A clear project management and quality assurance strategy that demonstrates the ability of the Proponent to achieve Study outcomes on time and budget v) Clear definition of the role and involvement of City staff. TOTAL

9 STAGE 3 Interview and/or Reference Checks - if required (a) Interview (b) Detailed reference checks TOTAL 90 STAGE 4 Cost Proponents must meet or exceed a minimum threshold of 75% or of 90 points in Stage 2 in order to be further considered for cost. The lowest priced Proposal receives 10 points; and the remaining Proposals are assigned points based on the following formula: (lowest cost Proposal Proponent s Proposal cost) x 10 TOTAL SCORE 100 N/A N/A 10 III. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Q1. The relationship between the focused public engagement work described in the last paragraph of and the separate TOcore Public Engagement Consultant (to be engaged by the City) is unclear. Could you please clarify the scope of work to be provided by the separate TOcore Public Engagement Consultant and how it will support or integrate with the Parks and Public Realm Plan? A1. Refer to A2 in Addendum No. 1 under the "Questions and Answers from the Voluntary Information Meeting" section. Q2. The fourth paragraph of Task 1C (page 14) notes that the study will have a web presence. Can you confirm who will develop, design, and maintain the website; what role the consultant team will have in providing material for the website; and how this work will be split between the consultant team, the separate TOcore Public Engagement Consultant and the City? A2. The website will be developed by the TOcore Public Engagement Consultant and maintained by the City. The Vendor engaged through this RFP process will be able to use the website for the work contained in this RFP and will be required to generate content. Q3. The third bullet in Task 1C (page 14) notes that the consultant team is required to attend 3 public presentations or lectures. Is the expectation that the consultant will also prepare and present these presentations or lectures? A3. The Vendor is required to prepare the public presentations and/or lectures, to be delivered by a key senior professional on the Vendor's team. Q4. Can you confirm that the City and/or the separate TOcore Public Engagement Consultant will be responsible for preparing and maintaining the list of engagement tools identified on pages 15-16, and that the consultant team will be responsible for preparing the content and analyzing results? A4. Refer to A2 in Addendum No. 1 under the "Questions and Answers from the Voluntary Information Meeting" section. The specialized and targeted public engagement and stakeholder consultation specific to the Downtown Parks and Public Realm Plan, Public Life Study, and other required tasks under this RFP, must be prepared and analyzed by the Vendor. 9

10 Q5. The first bullet under Task 2D (page 20) identifies the need to complete mapping of the existing urban forest Downtown, however, the City s Urban Forestry group already has similar information. How is this mapping intended to differ or augment the existing inventory? What is the scope of the mapping with regards to private property? A5. Refer to A1 in Addendum No. 1 under the "Questions and Answers" section. The Vendor is required to generate the map layers using the Urban Forestry data available on Open Data. Additional detailed mapping of specific areas may form part of the Work Program proposed by the Vendor. Q6: Our team will be structured with a Joint Lead (while formally identifying a `prime` proponent as per the requirements of section 5.3.1a). This being the case, we would like to show 2 past assignments for each Joint Lead firm (4 total), rather than the 3 for the prime, and 1 for the subconsultant allowance. All other sub-consultants to the team would be allotted the maximum of 1 past assignment. Could you confirm this this permissible? A6. Yes this is permissible. However, as per Section 5.3 sub-section 2 there must be a Prime Proponent identified in the submission. Q7. In bid meeting was stated this is a 16 month project. The RFP states the project to be a 3 year project. Please confirm timeline for completed project? A7. TOcore is a three-year project which will be completed in mid The timeline for the work required in this RFP is 16 months, as part of TOcore Phase 2. Q8. The stated building blocks of TOcore include Water & Wastewater as well as Energy as mentioned on page 7 & 8. Is the RFP expected to cover these 2 aspects or will a separate RFP be issued to evaluate them? A8. Section of the RFP discusses the scope of this RFP vis-à-vis the overall TOcore project. Q9. On page 18 of the RFP the Active Transportation Analysis is focused on streets. Will this include the trail system through ravines as this represents a substantial portion of Toronto's Active Transportation network? Should this also include the PATH system? A9. Yes, the Active Transportation Analysis should include the trail system including connectivity to ravines and natural areas in and adjacent to the study area. The PATH system should be part of the analysis, especially related to points of access. Q10. The Public Life Study does not appear to address the use of public spaces during the winter which is considerably different than the other seasons. To what extent should the winter season be integrated into the analysis and strategies. Should the Public Life Study allocate some analysis during the winter season? A10. As outlined under Task 3, in Section 3.4, the Public Life Study should address the winter season. Q11. What does the City foresee is the relationship between the overall engagement firm and the engagement firm in this process? What is their scope versus what is the scope under this process? A11. Refer to A2 in Addendum No. 1 under the "Questions and Answers from the Voluntary Information Meeting" section. 10

11 Q12. What is the anticipated alignment of plans and processes (parallel to this process)? In other words are all of the themes being developed at the same time or will some of the parallel studies extend beyond this process? In light of this how many multi-team meetings should we allocate for? A12. The parallel initiatives listed in Section of the RFP have their own unique timeframes. The minimum number of meetings has been outlined in Task 1C. Q13. To what extent will this study anticipated to link or make reference or recommendations that affect other on-going studies including green streets, complete streets and urban street tree planting guidelines (all underway)? A13. The deliverables for this assignment are summarized in Section 3.5 and described in more detail in various sections of the RFP. These may include recommendations that may inform other parallel processes or initiatives. Q14. What format is the City tree data to be tabulated in? GIS? A14. The required format is outlined in Section 3.6 of the RFP. Q15. To what extent and detail is the consultant expected to map the urban forest? A15. Refer to the answer to Question 5 above. Q15. Is the consultant asked to generate a terms of reference for how to conduct the inventory of the urban forest? A15. Yes, this should be addressed as part of the Proponents submission and will be included in the Work Program under Task 1 as described in Section 3.4. Q16. It is anticipated that the City, through parallel studies, has accumulated mapping for the urban forest. What format will this information be made available to the consultant and to what extent is this information available? A16. Refer to A1 in Addendum No. 1 under the "Questions and Answers" section. Q17. Provided the breadth of information required to be organized and the extent to which this process is multi-facetted and requires a large amount of coordination of the consultant team, will the City consider a modest extension of the deadline to receive proposals? A17. Please see Section I above. Should you have any questions regarding this addendum contact Aimee Yang at ayang@toronto.ca or Please attach this addendum to your RFP document and be governed accordingly. Proponents must acknowledge receipt of all addenda in their Proposal in the space provided on the Proposal Submission Form as per Appendix A, Section 4 - Addenda of the RFP document. All other aspects of the RFP remain the same. Allison Phillips Manager Professional Services 11