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

[pattherat]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

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.

Yeah, not being willing to take without question the level of accuracy raised by two historically hyperbolic people (Deans and Chianello) over the actual details of the procurement process (which no-one here knows without speculation) is sticking one’s head in the sand, sure.

Feel free to continue to see them as bastions of truth and fact if you wish. Questioning them and waiting for facts before making declarative assumptions as fact, as many on here are doing, is the path I will take.

[pattherat]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

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.

This is absolutely a reasonable reaction. You state, where many jump to conclusions, that we are not fully aware of the rules/mechanisms built into the process. So our responses should be tempered.

It is highly likely the Chianello is not aware of all the rules within either, but her articles are rarely tempered with context anyhow, so should we be surprised that she MAY be overstating this ‘scandal’?

[m0nkyman]

As a taxpayer, I'm concerned about the deal. Unless no one passed the technical, then I can't see how we aren't exposed to liability from the other bidders suing over this process.

If no one passed the technical, then I have to assume that the technical standards weren't realistic.

Either way, this process doesn't make sense.

[dougvdh]

Has any one actually seen the Stage 2 (prequalified teams) RFP document? I pulled up the RFQ document (used to create the shortlist), and from that document, it seems there was built in wiggle room for advancing teams that did not quite meet the threshold requirements (see points 5, 6, 7). Not sure if this same flexibility existed in the Stage 2 evaluation criteria.

Section 6 — RFQ EVALUATION CRITERIA CATEGORIES
6.1 Evaluation Criteria Categories
(1) A Prequalification Submission that has passed the substantial completeness review will be subjected to a scoring, further details of which are set out in Appendix B — Prequalification Submission Requirements to this RFQ.
(2) The weightings for the Evaluation Criteria Categories in this RFQ Process are set out in Appendix A – RFQ Data Sheet. The Evaluation Criteria are set out in Appendix B. A score will be assigned to each point of information requested.
(3) The evaluation teams will evaluate in their discretion each Prequalification Submission on the extent to which it meets or exceeds the Evaluation Criteria and meets or exceeds any other requirements of this RFQ.
(4) Applicants must receive:
(a) a minimum score of at least sixty (60) percent of the available points for each of the following as set out in the RFP Data Sheet:
(i) Section 1.0 of Table 1: Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFQ Data Sheet;
(ii) Section 2.0 of Table 1: Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFQ Data Sheet
(iii) Section 3.0 of Table 1: Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFQ Data Sheet;
(iv) Section 4.0 of Table 1: Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFQ Data Sheet;
(v) Section 5.0 of Table 1: Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFQ Data Sheet;
(b) a minimum score of at least sixty (60) percent of the available points for Section 6.0 of Table 2: Financial Evaluation Criteria of the RFQ Data Sheet.
(5) If an Applicant fails to achieve any one of the minimum scores in Section 6.1(4)(a) the Sponsor may, in its discretion, determine whether that Applicant's Prequalification Submission will continue to be considered in the RFQ Process.
(6) If an Applicant fails to achieve the minimum score in Section 6.1(4)(b), such Applicant shall not be prequalified for the RFP Process. For clarity, the minimum score outlined in Section 6.1(4)(b) shall only be used as a pass/fail threshold and not for the purposes of ranking Applicants as referenced in Step 3 of the evaluation process as outlined in Section 5.1.
(7) In relation to the discretionary decision to continue an Applicant’s submission, the Sponsor may take into account, among other matters, any one or more of the following non-exhaustive factors:
(a) the severity of the failure to achieve a minimum score;
(b) the Applicant’s total technical submission score; and
(c) whether multiple Applicants have failed to achieve a minimum score.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by pattherat

Yeah, not being willing to take without question the level of accuracy raised by two historically hyperbolic people (Deans and Chianello) over the actual details of the procurement process (which no-one here knows without speculation) is sticking one’s head in the sand, sure.

Feel free to continue to see them as bastions of truth and fact if you wish. Questioning them and waiting for facts before making declarative assumptions as fact, as many on here are doing, is the path I will take.

It goes both ways. We can't believe everything that comes out of the media but we also can't instill blind trust in City Staff that have given us terrible estimates in the past (Stage 1 and 2), over-hyped the benefits of major expenditures (2015 O-Train upgrade that was suppose to deliver 8 minute frequency but only provided 12 minutes). As always, the truth lies in the middle.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by dougvdh

Has any one actually seen the Stage 2 (prequalified teams) RFP document? I pulled up the RFQ document (used to create the shortlist), and from that document, it seems there was built in wiggle room for advancing teams that did not quite meet the threshold requirements (see points 5, 6, 7). Not sure if this same flexibility existed in the Stage 2 evaluation criteria.

Section 6 — RFQ EVALUATION CRITERIA CATEGORIES
6.1 Evaluation Criteria Categories
(1) A Prequalification Submission that has passed the substantial completeness review will be subjected to a scoring, further details of which are set out in Appendix B — Prequalification Submission Requirements to this RFQ.
(2) The weightings for the Evaluation Criteria Categories in this RFQ Process are set out in Appendix A – RFQ Data Sheet. The Evaluation Criteria are set out in Appendix B. A score will be assigned to each point of information requested.
(3) The evaluation teams will evaluate in their discretion each Prequalification Submission on the extent to which it meets or exceeds the Evaluation Criteria and meets or exceeds any other requirements of this RFQ.
(4) Applicants must receive:
(a) a minimum score of at least sixty (60) percent of the available points for each of the following as set out in the RFP Data Sheet:
(i) Section 1.0 of Table 1: Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFQ Data Sheet;
(ii) Section 2.0 of Table 1: Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFQ Data Sheet
(iii) Section 3.0 of Table 1: Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFQ Data Sheet;
(iv) Section 4.0 of Table 1: Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFQ Data Sheet;
(v) Section 5.0 of Table 1: Technical Evaluation Criteria of the RFQ Data Sheet;
(b) a minimum score of at least sixty (60) percent of the available points for Section 6.0 of Table 2: Financial Evaluation Criteria of the RFQ Data Sheet.
(5) If an Applicant fails to achieve any one of the minimum scores in Section 6.1(4)(a) the Sponsor may, in its discretion, determine whether that Applicant's Prequalification Submission will continue to be considered in the RFQ Process.
(6) If an Applicant fails to achieve the minimum score in Section 6.1(4)(b), such Applicant shall not be prequalified for the RFP Process. For clarity, the minimum score outlined in Section 6.1(4)(b) shall only be used as a pass/fail threshold and not for the purposes of ranking Applicants as referenced in Step 3 of the evaluation process as outlined in Section 5.1.
(7) In relation to the discretionary decision to continue an Applicant’s submission, the Sponsor may take into account, among other matters, any one or more of the following non-exhaustive factors:
(a) the severity of the failure to achieve a minimum score;
(b) the Applicant’s total technical submission score; and
(c) whether multiple Applicants have failed to achieve a minimum score.

So this is a public document. And unless there was corruption, Stage 2 would have had a similar cheap-out clause. So I ask again, if the RFP process as drafted above is publicly accessible, why could City Staff not come out and say "yes" or "no" to the questions of Deans, Leiper, McKenney and others on March 6? Outlining the process would not have compromised the results of the actual competition.

Corruption is a possibility, but more likely, staff and lawyers were trying to cover their own 🞵🞵🞵. Could be a case of incompetence and dishonesty more than corruption.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Corruption is a possibility, but more likely, staff and lawyers were trying to cover their own 🞵🞵🞵. Could be a case of incompetence and dishonesty more than corruption.

Never assume malice when incompetence is a perfectly adequate explanation.

[lrt's friend]

privacy and confidentiality is used increasingly to withhold information from the public.

[kmcamp]

It was interesting to see this weekend that the path for the airport link has already been cleared off trees by the ey centre. Makes phase 2 seem real

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

It was interesting to see this weekend that the path for the airport link has already been cleared off trees by the ey centre. Makes phase 2 seem real

I saw that too; they're note messing around!

[rocketphish]

SNC-Lavalin: Leiper trying to find ways to address Stage 2 contract award at Wednesday's council meeting

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: March 25, 2019

At least one councillor is trying to round up support to discuss the Stage 2 O-Train contracts during Wednesday’s council meeting.

Kitchissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper said Monday he’ll be speaking with colleagues, including the mayor, and the clerk’s office about how council can address a suggestion that SNC-Lavalin didn’t meet the minimum technical threshold in winning the Trillium Line expansion contract.

The problem is, council approved the Stage 2 contracts earlier this month and revisiting any decision requires agreement of three-quarters of council, unless there’s new information that comes to light.

The “new information” part could be a sticking point.

No city staffer has told council during a meeting about how SNC-Lavalin scored during the Stage 2 bidding process. When councillors tried prying the information from staff earlier this month, staff and lawyers refused to provide the information, citing commercial confidentiality. Last week, CBC, citing unnamed sources, reported that SNC-Lavalin didn’t meet the scoring threshold.

Leiper said there are enough residents asking what’s going on to at least warrant a discussion at council.

“It’s important that we put this to rest,” Leiper said.

However, it might be hard for Leiper and any of his backers to convince the mayor to reopen discussions around the Stage 2 contracts.

“Mayor Watson has not seen any motion to this effect,” his spokeswoman Livia Belcea said. “That being said, the mayor is of the opinion that this matter was fully discussed and dealt with at the March 6 council meeting. No new information has been submitted for review.”

Council on March 6 voted overwhelmingly in favour of awarding the Confederation Line expansion contract to Kiewit and Vinci and the Trillium Line expansion contract to SNC-Lavalin. The contracts have a total value of more than $4.6 billion, which makes Stage 2 the largest infrastructure project in Ottawa’s history, eclipsing the $2.1-billion Stage 1 LRT project.

An outside fairness commissioner hired by the city to oversee the Stage 2 procurement concluded that the selection process was “fair.”

Three councillors voted against the staff-recommended contract awards for Stage 2: Rick Chiarelli, Diane Deans and Shawn Menard.

During the March 6 council meeting, the city’s legal consultant said that even if council voted to go into a closed session to learn more about the bidding process, city staff wouldn’t say anything about how the bids scored against the minimum benchmarks. It’s meant to maintain the necessary secrecy of the procurement process, council was told.

“A number of us are struggling to understand the confidentiality provisions,” Leiper said Monday.

River Coun. Riley Brockington said he was led to believe during the March 6 council meeting that SNC-Lavalin at least met the minimum technical score required before the bid underwent a financial analysis.

Brockington said if SNC-Lavalin didn’t meet the minimum technical score, council should at the very least hear the rationale from staff in a closed session of Wednesday’s council meeting.

“There’s no information in the city’s interests that should be withheld from members of council,” Brockington said.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...ract-award-at-wednesdays-council-meeting

[OCCheetos]

I think surveying for the extension of Raven Road has been going on for a couple of weeks now. A few people have been out there marking utilities.

[Multi-modal]

Steve Kanallakos's memo to council today has some wording that adds weight to the possibility that the contract had clauses that gave the City discretion to evaluate the SNC Lavelin bid even though it did not meet the 70% minimum technical score (if this is true).

The procurement documents set out for the proponents the internal governance rules that will be followed by the City, including the due diligence, fairness and discretionary powers that City can exercise in the process. By issuing the procurement documents, the City commits itself to exercising the powers set out in the procurement documents in a manner agreed to by all proponents from the outset.

it is notable that evaluation processes typically include discretionary rights that may be exercised, after taking into account the RFP document itself, applicable legal principles, including relevant by-laws and trade agreements, as well as the common law.

[RomanR27]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think surveying for the extension of Raven Road has been going on for a couple of weeks now. A few people have been out there marking utilities.

Apparently the city should have begun drilling bore holes this week.

https://carleton.ca/transportationplan/new-raven-road-stadium-way/

[rocketphish]

Mayor Watson has no problem with auditor general investigating Stage 2 procurement

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: March 27, 2019

Mayor Jim Watson says he has “no difficulty” with the auditor general scrutinizing the secretive Stage 2 O-Train procurement process, which included the selection of SNC-Lavalin as a contractor, after a councillor announced he’ll ask colleagues to recommend an investigation.

“I’d have no difficulty if the auditor general does that. He has the right to do that,” Watson said after a council meeting Wednesday.

Council’s audit committee is scheduled to approve auditor general Ken Hughes’s next work plan on April 8. A preliminary version of the work plan that was published — but then removed from the city’s website when the meeting date was rescheduled — didn’t include Stage 2 procurement.

The city is scheduled to sign the Trillium Line expansion contract with SNC-Lavalin by Friday. The city has kept secret almost all details about the procurement process, but CBC, citing unnamed sources, reported that the company didn’t meet the minimum technical scoring threshold during the bidding process. The city has been silent on that assertion.

The city also selected a partnership between Kiewit and Vinci as the contractor for the Confederation Line expansion.

It’s unusual for councillors to bring a motion asking for an investigation by the auditor general, whose annual work plan must be approved by council. The auditor general creates a work plan based on conversations he’s had with council members and areas in which he believes deserve scrutiny.

“If they put that on their work plan, I have no problems with it because I think it’s a solid arrangement that staff have brought forward to us,” Watson said of the Stage 2 contracts. “I’m very proud of the fact we’re moving forward with Stage 2 of LRT and despite the attempts by some to delay the process, it’s full steam ahead.”

Together, the Stage 2 contracts are worth more than $4.6 billion, making it the largest infrastructure project in Ottawa’s history. The cost is $1.2-billion more than what the city estimated for the project before taking contract bids.

Watson said “it’s a good deal for taxpayers and it’s a good deal for future and current riders of OC Transpo.”

Capital Coun. Shawn Menard told council on Wednesday that he’ll ask for support during the next council meeting on April 10 to have the auditor general dig into the Stage 2 procurement.

Menard said the public wants more answers on the Stage 2 procurement. The city won’t disclose more information, citing a necessary legal protection of the contracting process.

“I think residents of Ottawa have demanded transparency from their city government and that’s not what they’re receiving right now,” Menard said after the council meeting.

Some councillors were trying to find a way to bring up the Stage 2 contracts during the council meeting Wednesday, but they clearly didn’t have enough support from colleagues to launch a debate.

“You should see the number of emails we’re getting on this thing, the phone calls that are coming into our office, action on social media,” Menard said later, bemoaning a “huge problem with transparency” in the city.

“I’m surprised that there’s not more openness from left, from right, from middle across this council to say, look it, we don’t represent the private sector that we’re giving this contract over to. We represent the public. We represent our constituents who have questions.”

Gloucester-Southgate Coun. Diane Deans, who along with Menard and College Coun. Rick Chiarelli voted against the Stage 2 contracts earlier this month, is also chipping away on the veil of secrecy surrounding the procurement. She submitted a written inquiry to staff asking about decisions they made on the Stage 2 procurement using the authority delegated by council.

On Wednesday morning, city manager Steve Kanellakos issued a three-page memo to council defending the city’s procurement of Stage 2 and vowing to release as much information as legally possible after the contracts are in place.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...eneral-investigating-stage-2-procurement

[kmcamp]

I really feel that this is an attempt to manufacture a scandal, only because of the whole LavScam thing at the federal level. If one of the other bidders had won, nobody would have been asking any questions at all.

Let's say for sake of argument, SNC-L scored 69, and the other bidders scored 71 and 73 respectively, so that the reports of not meeting the 70 threshold reported in the media is true. If the price difference was $250 million, is that 2 point difference worth it?

We don't have the answers of course, but I think that once you lift the covers you'll find the answers are rather prosiac, and not the juicy scandal people are inventing in their minds

[daud]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

I really feel that this is an attempt to manufacture a scandal, only because of the whole LavScam thing at the federal level. If one of the other bidders had won, nobody would have been asking any questions at all.

Let's say for sake of argument, SNC-L scored 69, and the other bidders scored 71 and 73 respectively, so that the reports of not meeting the 70 threshold reported in the media is true. If the price difference was $250 million, is that 2 point difference worth it?

We don't have the answers of course, but I think that once you lift the covers you'll find the answers are rather prosiac, and not the juicy scandal people are inventing in their minds

The details are probably quite mundane and there probably isn't any scandal. That being said, they are doing their due diligence in auditing the process especially in light of the fact SNC is known to have played dirty with procurement, even in Canada (mcGill). This may have all been avoided if city staff had explained the process and how SNC ended up on top from the start, but they chose to hide details that, given the company and its history, should have been laid bare for everyone to see.

As a taxpayer, I would have liked city staff to be more upfront with council and been more open, instead of hiding the full contract, not releasing details and making them vote with a proverbial 🞵🞵🞵 to their head.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by daud

The details are probably quite mundane and there probably isn't any scandal. That being said, they are doing their due diligence in auditing the process especially in light of the fact SNC is known to have played dirty with procurement, even in Canada (mcGill). This may have all been avoided if city staff had explained the process and how SNC ended up on top from the start, but they chose to hide details that, given the company and its history, should have been laid bare for everyone to see.

As a taxpayer, I would have liked city staff to be more upfront with council and been more open, instead of hiding the full contract, not releasing details and making them vote with a proverbial 🞵🞵🞵 to their head.

Good Day.

and thank you for a succinct and accurate summary.

It is indeed probably a molehill that had no need to be a mountain, but City's classic hide-everything mentality makes the optics really bad.
If the auditor comes back and says OK, then I'll put my concerns to rest (as much as paranoia allows !!) .

[danishh]

Originally Posted by daud

The details are probably quite mundane and there probably isn't any scandal. That being said, they are doing their due diligence in auditing the process especially in light of the fact SNC is known to have played dirty with procurement, even in Canada (mcGill). This may have all been avoided if city staff had explained the process and how SNC ended up on top from the start, but they chose to hide details that, given the company and its history, should have been laid bare for everyone to see.

As a taxpayer, I would have liked city staff to be more upfront with council and been more open, instead of hiding the full contract, not releasing details and making them vote with a proverbial 🞵🞵🞵 to their head.

I work federal procurement.

without seeing the solicitation documents (not sure if they're still public), it's impossible to tell what the technical threshold really was and how it was supposed to be enforced during evaluation. Also, just because it's a technical score, doesn't mean there are not management and personnel requirements within the technical evaluation. It's entirely possible that SNC bid their experience on phase 1 as part of the requirement to meet some management or personnel experience requirements and cross the 70% threshold, and because phase 1 is so far behind schedule the other bidders are arguing it shouldn't count.

for the record, Treasury Board doesn't get the full contract before voting either. They get many, many documents explaining the procurement process and the project, but they are being asked for their approval to enter into contract, not their judgement on the contractual document itself. If we want to reform the system such that politicians are reviewing the actual contract, we could, but that opens the public procurement system up to a lot more risk of political interference and opens the politicians up to more accountability for the minor details of the contract, which I'm not sure they really want.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by RomanR27

Apparently the city should have begun drilling bore holes this week.

https://carleton.ca/transportationplan/new-raven-road-stadium-way/

Drilling is currently happening right by Bronson.