O-Train Line 2/4 [Stage 2 | Greenboro to Limebank/Airport] | In Service

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This just proves that the technical scoring has absolutely no weight on the selection process. It's purely about who submits the lowest bid.

And of course it involves SNC... so there's a huge cloud over the whole thing.

[Ottawaresident]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This just proves that the technical scoring has absolutely no weight on the selection process. It's purely about who submits the lowest bid.

I suspect there is corruption somewhere in there as well. How else would city staff accept a bid that didn't meet the requirements?

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'd be curious to go back to 2012 and see if RTG won purely on price.

Nobody would be surprised if they did. The delays and downgrading only proves it.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This just proves that the technical scoring has absolutely no weight on the selection process. It's purely about who submits the lowest bid.

Can you imagine how much more we would have gone over the original estimates if we selected the best technical submission? The city is trying to save face with their bad estimates.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Can you imagine how much more we would have gone over the original estimates if we selected the best technical submission? The city is trying to save face with their bad estimates.

One of three scenarios; City Staff saving face for their terrible estimates, politicians within Watson's circle trying to save face and cementing their legacy by any means possible or corruption which could involve certain politicians, City Staff or both.

[pattherat]

Jesus the ignorance in here.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by pattherat

Jesus the ignorance in here.

Care to enlighten?

[pattherat]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Care to enlighten?

So many armchair ignoramuses in here that have no idea why the procurement process is the way it is.

- the mayor or council are not part of the eval process expressly because they are known and could be targeted for impropriety
- the indenties of evaluators are secret because...see above
- the points rating etc are kept secret expressly so competitors cannot sue and consistently question the ratings they receive.
- the technical threshold may not have been mandatory on its own and therefore disqualifying; a combination of aggregate scores may have qualified candidates

Chianello and Deans, by raising doubt about the process have now potentially opened up the city to potential lawsuits. Idiots.

Also to add:
- the evaluators do not know who the respondents are either, they only see them labeled as company A, company B...etc.

So, the evaluators don’t know who the companies are and the companies don’t know who the evaluators are..So tell me how the evaluators are ‘on the take’ or pick who they want to win?

What basically people are saying indirectly is that the city staff are untrustworthy...and that to me is an insult that they do not deserve, especially from a collection of people that are obviously ignorant of the process and exceedingly reactionary.

Out.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by pattherat

So many armchair ignoramuses in here that have no idea why the procurement process is the way it is.

- the mayor or council are not part of the eval process expressly because they are known and could be targeted for impropriety
- the indenties of evaluators are secret because...see above
- the points rating etc are kept secret expressly so competitors cannot sue and consistently question the ratings they receive.
- the technical threshold may not have been mandatory on its own and therefore disqualifying; a combination of aggregate scores may have qualified candidates

Chianello and Deans, by raising doubt about the process have now potentially opened up the city to potential lawsuits. Idiots.

Also to add:
- the evaluators do not know who the respondents are either, they only see them labeled as company A, company B...etc.

So, the evaluators don’t know who the companies are and the companies don’t know who the evaluators are..So tell me how the evaluators are ‘on the take’ or pick who they want to win?

What basically people are saying indirectly is that the city staff are untrustworthy...and that to me is an insult that they do not deserve, especially from a collection of people that are obviously ignorant of the process and exceedingly reactionary.

Out.

I completely understand all of your points, and I was with you until today. I thought City staff were doing the correct thing by not informing the Councillors anything about the scores, ect... But the fact that Chianello has three anonymous sources telling her SNC Lavelin did not meet the minimum technical requirements tells me something strange is going on. You are right that the City is now open to lawsuits from the other engineering firms, but if they gave the bid to a bidder who did not meet the minimum technical score as set out from the beginning of the process then they deserve to be sued.

As to your last point, what have City staff involved in this process done to earn our trust? Obviously innocent until proven guilty, but City staff are not above being questioned when it comes to these matters. That is not an insult, its engaged citizenry.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day.

and what we have been told to this point is that the minimum 70% tech score was a mandatory -before- being passed on to the final tech aggregation.... and then to the financial.... and then to the final aggregate.... and then to the comparison-and-decision/selection which then goes to the executive.
To not meet the 70% minimum means a severe flaw in the bid, which is grounds in there somewhere (confidential information) to reject the bid. No going on furthur in the process.
Furthur, the bidder is properly and fully able to request a review of their bid (behind closed doors - full confidentiality) to discover why their bid was deemed non-compliant.
This does -not- enable the bidder to request to be able to re-submit their bid, fixing the non-compliant areas - the bid was submitted as-is and the competition closed.

Hence why it should have been a no-brainer to unqualifiedly and without arguement be able to have answered Deans' question as to if they had met the 70% - =without= revealing -any- tech or confidential information, since, if they had not met the 70%, they should have been eliminated, hence not passed on to the subsequent steps for selection, hence answer the yes/no question simply, with a yes. That they did -not- answer the question severely implies that the selected did -not- meet the 70%, and hence we -are- now without question in a position for the other two bidders to be able to consider to sue.

This is -not- a good position for the City to be in..... all because, for some reason, the -final- result was presented to Council in a flawed condition.
And it is not a good position for us, the passengers, to be in, because we may now end up riding a sub-mandatory technically-flawed service.

== No Joy == !

[lrt's friend]

Obviously, all the technically compliant bids were considerably more expensive.

[Baybreeze12]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Did a remake of our future of Ottawa RT video. gonna crosspost to the Line 1 West and West threads : https://youtu.be/DsBIokuEoMM

I took a look; great job! I think it really encapsulates how quickly (some might say belatedly) our transport infrastructure is evolving.

One very small point: I know you marked the key interchange stations (Trembley, Bayview, etc), but the other stations on the line(s) may have benefitted from some visual representation, so as to better tie them in with the narration. But really, that's small potatoes.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

But the fact that Chianello has three anonymous sources telling her SNC Lavelin did not meet the minimum technical requirements tells me something strange is going on.

Isn't it ironic that secret anonymous sources are being tapped to undermine a process criticized for being secretive and anonymous? Would these tippers be willing to expose themselves to prove the validity of these claims? Probably not. There's a dangerous game being played here because there is a very small and finite group who was party to the bidding information, and it won't be hard to flush out who the rats might be.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

But the fact that Chianello has three anonymous sources telling her SNC Lavelin did not meet the minimum technical requirements tells me something strange is going on.

Take what Chianello says with a grain of salt - she’s the queen of spin on all things LRT. Remember she was the one that claimed no testing was going on at all while there were sightings of single and coupled trains all over the line for months.

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by pattherat

So many armchair ignoramuses in here that have no idea why the procurement process is the way it is.

- the mayor or council are not part of the eval process expressly because they are known and could be targeted for impropriety
- the indenties of evaluators are secret because...see above
- the points rating etc are kept secret expressly so competitors cannot sue and consistently question the ratings they receive.
- the technical threshold may not have been mandatory on its own and therefore disqualifying; a combination of aggregate scores may have qualified candidates

Chianello and Deans, by raising doubt about the process have now potentially opened up the city to potential lawsuits. Idiots.

Also to add:
- the evaluators do not know who the respondents are either, they only see them labeled as company A, company B...etc.

So, the evaluators don’t know who the companies are and the companies don’t know who the evaluators are..So tell me how the evaluators are ‘on the take’ or pick who they want to win?

What basically people are saying indirectly is that the city staff are untrustworthy...and that to me is an insult that they do not deserve, especially from a collection of people that are obviously ignorant of the process and exceedingly reactionary.

Out.

Ummmm right... I agree with your points on the conduct of the evaluation, however isn't the point of the procurement process to establish the "rules" upfront on how ALL bidders will be assessed and what the criteria are for contract award and if you don't meet ALL the criteria you shouldn't be eligible for contract award? The 70% technical pass mark was an established criteria - SNC didn't meet it - how do they get the contract? What's the point of having a process with clear rules for all to know if the City won't enforce them or apply them - makes your procurement process seem flawed, not open, nor transparent. Other bidders could have made the determination NOT to bid based on the 70% pass mark - but if that wasn't a requirement to meet it shouldn't have been stated and they may have been eligible to compete for the work. Something really stinks here.

[daud]

for me the key considerations are:

Chris Swail told Diane Deans the process was as follows: a-prequalification, b-technical score (required 70%) then c-financial. This is pretty standard stuff. I've done federal bids and to get to financial bid, you have to pass technical. She asked for clarification on this process and he said yes, that was the process.

So, the sticking point here is if SNC did not pass b- how did they get to c. Especially, if, as implied above, the company names for each bid were not provided. In short, was b mandatory and if not, that put the other bids at disadvantage because presumably, there are costs associated with getting about the 70% threshold.

I wholly believe cost was a determining factor and the city had our best interests at heart but when selecting a provider, one needs to compare apples to apples.

There could have been cost considerations placed into the RFP that needed to be met. My guess is there wasnt.

They probably started out, had 2 bidders move to c, looked at the pricing, suffered from sticker shock, went back to the 3rd, and let it proceed. As long as they have a clause in their process that allows them to do that, they are ok, otherwise, the criticisms are valid.

The resident in me however says...just get on with it.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by daud

They probably started out, had 2 bidders move to c, looked at the pricing, suffered from sticker shock, went back to the 3rd, and let it proceed. As long as they have a clause in their process that allows them to do that, they are ok, otherwise, the criticisms are valid

This is exactly it. I suspect the issue has nothing to do with SNC Lavelin (other than the fact they notoriously bid low) and everything to do with internal city processes. If there was a pre-established mechanism (say both bids that passed the technical stage were above a certain % of the financial target) that allowed the city to go back and re-assess the SNC Lavelin bid... then fine. But if that mechanism did not exist then we have a problem.

This is all assuming the three sources are truthful, have reliable knowledge of the bid process, and chianello isn't misinterpreting their information.

I'd also add that I stand to benefit first hand from trillium line going ahead (living close to the future walkley station), and I really hope the line can proceed. BUT, the city needs to be held to account if it is not following its procurement rules.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by pattherat

So many armchair ignoramuses in here that have no idea why the procurement process is the way it is.

- the mayor or council are not part of the eval process expressly because they are known and could be targeted for impropriety
- the indenties of evaluators are secret because...see above
- the points rating etc are kept secret expressly so competitors cannot sue and consistently question the ratings they receive.
- the technical threshold may not have been mandatory on its own and therefore disqualifying; a combination of aggregate scores may have qualified candidates

Chianello and Deans, by raising doubt about the process have now potentially opened up the city to potential lawsuits. Idiots.

Also to add:
- the evaluators do not know who the respondents are either, they only see them labeled as company A, company B...etc.

So, the evaluators don’t know who the companies are and the companies don’t know who the evaluators are..So tell me how the evaluators are ‘on the take’ or pick who they want to win?

What basically people are saying indirectly is that the city staff are untrustworthy...and that to me is an insult that they do not deserve, especially from a collection of people that are obviously ignorant of the process and exceedingly reactionary.

Out.

Corruption and cover-ups are rampant all over the world, supposed blind procurement processes included . And it comes from both politicians and upper level staff. To think Ottawa is somehow impervious to such corruption can be considered "ignorant".

It is interesting how some politicians, such as the Mayor who is quite controlling and who is known for backroom deals (he supported a downtown casino, and all of the sudden it had to be at Rideau Carleton, the Salvation Army's relocation is another example), raises no questions on the process and even goes as far as verbally attacking anyone who does. Those who follow his lead are either —-ups or involved.

And criticizing Chianello and Deans for questioning the process and revealing incriminating details brings up the following; is it better to stick our heads in the sand and let what might be a flawed or corrupt process go unnoticed or is it better to call out irregularities and hold those responsible to account.

We might be wrong (the doubters) might be wrong. Maybe the entire process went according to plan with no corruption, no regularities. So far though, a few details just don't seem right.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Isn't it ironic that secret anonymous sources are being tapped to undermine a process criticized for being secretive and anonymous? Would these tippers be willing to expose themselves to prove the validity of these claims? Probably not. There's a dangerous game being played here because there is a very small and finite group who was party to the bidding information, and it won't be hard to flush out who the rats might be.

True. If one believes it is important to call out the process, then why hide behind anonymity?

On the other hand, the justice system is know for rewarding the corrupt and punishing the whistle blowers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_affair

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

and what we have been told to this point is that the minimum 70% tech score was a mandatory -before- being passed on to the final tech aggregation.... and then to the financial.... and then to the final aggregate.... and then to the comparison-and-decision/selection which then goes to the executive.
To not meet the 70% minimum means a severe flaw in the bid, which is grounds in there somewhere (confidential information) to reject the bid. No going on furthur in the process.
Furthur, the bidder is properly and fully able to request a review of their bid (behind closed doors - full confidentiality) to discover why their bid was deemed non-compliant.
This does -not- enable the bidder to request to be able to re-submit their bid, fixing the non-compliant areas - the bid was submitted as-is and the competition closed.

Hence why it should have been a no-brainer to unqualifiedly and without arguement be able to have answered Deans' question as to if they had met the 70% - =without= revealing -any- tech or confidential information, since, if they had not met the 70%, they should have been eliminated, hence not passed on to the subsequent steps for selection, hence answer the yes/no question simply, with a yes. That they did -not- answer the question severely implies that the selected did -not- meet the 70%, and hence we -are- now without question in a position for the other two bidders to be able to consider to sue.

This is -not- a good position for the City to be in..... all because, for some reason, the -final- result was presented to Council in a flawed condition.
And it is not a good position for us, the passengers, to be in, because we may now end up riding a sub-mandatory technically-flawed service.

== No Joy == !

Bingo. That was exactly my point a few weeks ago.