HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1481  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 2:02 AM
OCCheetos OCCheetos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 2,118
According to Shane, there is still a possibility that the transfer configuration at South Keys between Airport and main line trains will change in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1482  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 2:53 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCCheetos View Post
According to Shane, there is still a possibility that the transfer configuration at South Keys between Airport and main line trains will change in the future.
Yes, there seemed to be a discussion about that before, on whether the pocket track would be replaced with a three track station at South Keys.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1483  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 1:43 PM
PHrenetic PHrenetic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHrenetic View Post
Good Day.

yep...P3 indeed, and that is exactly what they said they are exiting after completing the construction of these projects.
IE: what of the post-construction long-term maintenance ? My estimate - sold off.

Good Day.

Furthur to SNC-Lavalin re-organizing and pulling back from P3 projects :

Global News, July 24 : SNC-Lavalin bows out of bidding on Edmonton LRT project

https://globalnews.ca/news/5674839/snc-lavalin-edmonton-west-lrt-2/

Edmonton's three shortlisted pre-qualified bidders is now one, for the Valley Line West LRT project.
Looks like they may re-start the process pending a re-submission on the part of one of the others.

FYI.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1484  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 2:30 PM
OCCheetos OCCheetos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 2,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Yes, there seemed to be a discussion about that before, on whether the pocket track would be replaced with a three track station at South Keys.
It was a mentioned by another user back in January, but it's interesting that they're still considering alternatives after the contract was awarded.

Maybe we'll see some other changes too... Like Walkley?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1485  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 2:47 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCCheetos View Post
It was a mentioned by another user back in January, but it's interesting that they're still considering alternatives after the contract was awarded.

Maybe we'll see some other changes too... Like Walkley?
I doubt that replacing the Walkley overpass is in the cards, which would allow double tracking through to the station and pretty well guarantee 10 minute frequency is possible.

It would make transfers more reliable but the cost of doing so is not likely possible within the price of the contract.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1486  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2019, 2:33 PM
Multi-modal Multi-modal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,154
The redacted Project Agreements for Trillium Line and Confederation Line extensions are now available on the City website. See the bottom of this page under O-Train Planning:

https://ottawa.ca/en/routine-disclosure-...plans#transportation-services-department

I haven't gone through the documents with a fine-tooth comb obviously, but by searching some key words I've managed to find that a March 20th, 2019 letter from Transit Next claims that...
Quote:
By designing all bridge structures as rail-over-road, construction interference will be minimized compared to the road over rail method. This will simplify the required traffic control requirements, lowering the impact on traffic, and consequently reducing the number of lane closures required to complete the project. This also de-risks the project with respect to potential delays and safety hazards.
The letter goes on to specify the Limebank grade separation as rail over road bridge structure (same as all other structures, but contrary to what had previously been shown when Trillium Next won the bid).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1487  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2019, 6:56 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255
It's true: SNC-Lavalin failed the technical scoring for LRT bid
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/documents-snc-lavalin-failed-technical-score-1.5234767
Council approved $1.6-billion Trillium Line extension without knowing

Joanne Chianello · CBC News · Posted: Aug 02, 2019 2:36 PM ET | Last Updated: 13 minutes ago

SNC-Lavalin won the contract to extend the north-south Trillium Line, even though documents show that the struggling Montreal-based company failed to score the minimum 70 per cent on the technical evaluation. (City of Ottawa)

Beleaguered SNC-Lavalin failed to reach the minimum 70 per cent technical score in bidding for the Trillium Line extension, but was still able to win the $1.6-billion light rail contract.

The Montreal-based company, operating under the name TNext, scored 67.27 per cent, according to documents provided by the city under an access to information request CBC filed earlier this year.

SNC-Lavalin's competitors, meanwhile, scored significantly better. Trillium Extension Alliance (TEA) scored 84.91 per cent, while Trillium Link earned a technical mark of 85.78 per cent.

CBC first reported SNC-Lavalin had failed to meet the technical requirement in March 2019.

At the time, city officials refused to tell councillors, reporters or the public whether SNC-Lavalin had scored 70 per cent. Council approved the giant contract without knowing whether the company had hit that threshold.

Unnamed 'sponsor' had sole discretion

Since March, CBC has been trying to obtain the scores through an access to information request.

Those scores arrived in the mail from the city clerk's office Friday — the same day the city released the scores to councillors in a memo answering an inquiry from Coun. Diane Deans, a major critic of the LRT Stage 2 procurement process.

The requirements to achieve a minimum of 70 per cent in the technical scoring, therefore, was not an absolute pass/fail.
- City of Ottawa's memo


The 37-page memo includes a description of how a bidder could continue in the process after failing the technical evaluation.

According to the memo, subsection 6.5.2(4) of the RFP — a document that councillors didn't see and was refused to CBC — gave the "sponsor" of the procurement process "sole discretion" to determine whether a bidder could continue to be considered.

"The requirements to achieve a minimum of 70 per cent in the technical scoring, therefore, was not an absolute pass/fail," according to the memo sent to councillors of Friday afternoon.

The city has not yet identified the sponsor that had the authority to move SNC-Lavalin along in the procurement process.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1488  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2019, 7:31 PM
pattherat pattherat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 198
And now for a more complete and balanced article on the same subject with less hyperbole by omission:

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...rt-bidding-despite-lower-technical-score

The City of Ottawa admitted on Friday that it allowed SNC-Lavalin’s bid to continue being considered during the contract competition for the Trillium Line expansion even though the company’s bid didn’t meet the minimum technical score threshold.

City manager Steve Kanellakos sent to council a detailed memo about the scoring. The memo was in response to questions filed last March by Coun. Diane Deans, who, along with a couple of other councillors, expressed concern about a lack of transparency in the Stage 2 procurement process.

SNC, under the project name TransitNEXT, won the $663-million construction contract to build the Trillium Line expansion. The contract value is $1.6 billion when a long-term maintenance agreement for the Trillium Line is included.

The city has been under pressure to disclose more information about how it selected TransitNEXT to extend the Trillium Line to Riverside South and the Ottawa International Airport. There were two other shortlisted bidders, Trillium Link and Trillium Extension Alliance, which were both consortia of several companies.

Council approved the $4.6-billion Stage 2 O-Train expansion work on March 6.

Another construction consortia called East-West Connectors, made up of the companies Kiewit and Vinci, won the contract for the $2.6-billion Confederation Line expansion project.

However, it was the city’s selection of TransitNEXT that has attracted the most attention, especially when it came to the technical scoring during the bid-review process. A CBC Ottawa report in March citing unnamed sources suggested TransitNEXT didn’t achieve a minimum technical scoring threshold of 70 per cent.

The city has been silent on the bid scoring, until Friday.

The city laid most of its cards on the table, disclosing the technical and financial scores of the bidders, and confirming for the first time that TransitNEXT didn’t meet the minimum threshold for the technical score.

All three bids for the Trillium Line were “compliant” to the technical requirements in the bid tender, council was told.

However, according to the assessments released to council, the other two consortia blew TransitNEXT out of the water when it came to the technical scores.

TransitNEXT finished with 67.27 per cent, while Trillium Link had 85.78 per cent and Trillium Extension Alliance had 84.91 per cent.

The memo to council explains why the city’s executive steering committee on Stage 2 kept TransitNEXT in the mix after the technical scoring.

“This approach was based on legal advice around the use of discretion in the RFP and it was determined to be appropriate for several reasons, including the fact that the proponent’s technical submission had successfully completed the compliance review and it was advisable to mitigate the city’s exposure to legal challenges,” the memo says.

The memo doesn’t say why the city feared “legal challenges” if it didn’t let TransitNEXT continue in the bid process.

The executive steering committee for the project approved by council in February 2017 included city manager Steve Kanellakos, city clerk and solicitor Rick O’Connor, city treasurer Marian Simulik, transportation general manager John Manconi and O-Train construction director Michael Morgan, who took over from Steve Cripps at the beginning of 2019.
Allowing TransitNEXT to continue to the financial evaluation didn’t modify the technical score, council was told.

TransitNEXT blew the other bidders out of the water when it came to the financial scores. When combined with the technical scores, TransitNEXT came out as the highest-ranked bidder.

As for questions posed by Deans about whether staff had the authority to let a bidder continue without meeting a minimum scoring threshold, the memo sent by Kanellakos goes into detail about the authority granted to staff by council regarding Stage 2 contract decisions.

Council often votes to delegate authority to staff to make decisions on large projects without having to get the approval of council each time.

Auditor general Ken Hughes is investigating the city’s Stage 2 procurement process and staff’s council-delegated authority on the project.

The city on Friday also made public redacted versions of the Stage 2 construction contracts. The agreements are published on the city’s website. The city says it redacted portions of the agreements to protect third-party information and commercially sensitive details.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1489  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2019, 9:08 PM
OCCheetos OCCheetos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 2,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by pattherat View Post
And now for a more complete and balanced article on the same subject with less hyperbole by omission:
+1

The city of ottawa now has a boogeyman and his name is the "Sponsor".

https://twitter.com/ThatRobDavidson/status/1157364279324098561
https://twitter.com/Donna_Chiarelli/status/1157383562628358150
https://twitter.com/ValerieLeloup/status/1157366798561492998

Of course, "Sponsor" was just another name for "The City of Ottawa" in the RFP not that anyone who read the CBC article would know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1490  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2019, 12:37 AM
pattherat pattherat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCCheetos View Post
+1

The city of ottawa now has a boogeyman and his name is the "Sponsor".

https://twitter.com/ThatRobDavidson/status/1157364279324098561
https://twitter.com/Donna_Chiarelli/status/1157383562628358150
https://twitter.com/ValerieLeloup/status/1157366798561492998

Of course, "Sponsor" was just another name for "The City of Ottawa" in the RFP not that anyone who read the CBC article would know.
Yep, absolutely irresponsible reporting. Create the false narrative of the mystery ‘sponsor’ who held all the keys and unilaterally pushed things through. Except just cursory research shows this to be untrue. True to form JC. If only Kate Porter would have written it instead...sigh
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1491  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2019, 12:25 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,255
Would people rather have taxpayers pay (I assume) hundreds of millions more over a 2.73% difference from an artificial threshold that the City has the discretion to waive, especially when all bids complied with the RFP's technical requirements?

“If a Proponent fails to achieve any of the minimum scores as set out in the applicable provisions of Part B – Proposal Evaluation of Part 3 of Schedule 3 to
this RFP, then, as part of Step 2 of the evaluation process and pursuant to and in accordance with such provisions, the Sponsor may, in its sole discretion,
determine whether that Proponent’s Proposal will continue to be considered in the RFP Process.”


Lots of accusations over SNC corruptness, but "As per the RFP, without having disclosed the identity of any of the proponents, ESC exercised the discretion to permit staff to continue evaluating one of the Trillium Line proponents that met the completeness and technical compliance review requirements but did not meet the 70% threshold for technical evaluations."

Including the financial evaluations, the scores for the purposes of ranking were
TransitNEXT 821.35
Trillium Link 641.22
Trillium Ext. Alliance 517.94
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1492  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2019, 1:39 PM
OCCheetos OCCheetos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 2,118
If this were corruption, you'd think the "corrupt" committee that evaluated SNC's proposal would have just given them a passing score to avoid the hubbub...

It's clearly outlined in the RFP that city staff had this authority, the real question is if they followed that authority correctly. As long as they included SNC's bid in the financial evaluations prior to learning what the cost of each bid would be, then I don't think there's a problem here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1493  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2019, 2:31 PM
OCCheetos OCCheetos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 2,118
The CBC article was updated this morning and has removed all mention of "the sponsor".
They also added a section on the financial evaluations.

The damage has already been done though...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1494  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2019, 5:07 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 29,130
Really curious what they failed on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1495  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2019, 5:19 PM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,702
My guess is that the other bidders put in more quality and future-proofing to improve efficiency (more double tracking? better stations?) which drove their technical ratings and therefore costs higher. TransitNEXT probably put in the bare minimum requirements to get the price down. Hard to say without seeing the other proposals if we could have gotten more value with the more expensive bids.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1496  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2019, 6:01 PM
OCCheetos OCCheetos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 2,118
This was posted here back when the whole story first broke. Seems like the most plausible explanation for the low score.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmcamp View Post
It's hard to say what went on here, since we'll never know what the scores were or why. I'm going to guess though it has little to do with the trains and signalling, and a lot with how they obviously "value engineered" by doing things like ramps instead of elevators wherever possible, and the platforms themselves aren't really any improvement than what we have today, bus shelters rather than the elaborate confed line stations.

The CBC though is really trying to draw a parallel to Lavscam, although if you look at the other bidders many of them have been tied to questionable dealings themselves
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1497  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2019, 6:21 PM
kmcamp kmcamp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCCheetos View Post
This was posted here back when the whole story first broke. Seems like the most plausible explanation for the low score.
I still stand by that. I bet with the other bidders we would have gotten more confed line like stations, but not any better than the 12 minute frequency we have today
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1498  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2019, 4:43 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 29,131
Here's my take on this; I don't think there was any corruption between the City and SNC Lavalin however, there was clear incompetence, and likely some corruption, illegal or not, within the City.
  • First, the City's "estimates" were WAY off, displaying utter incompetence. They insisted that lessons were learned from Stage 1 (when they estimated 1.8 billion for a very elaborate system with 180 meter platforms, a deep bored tunnel and fully enclosed stations when asking for Federal and Provincial dollars, and re-adjusting to 2.1 billion for a much simpler system with 120 meter platforms). They found a few "savings" with a couple re-alignments and re-invested those "savings" on additional kilometers. Months after the bids came in and we discovered we were WAY over budget, the excuse was that the market has changed and we had added additional trackage (contradicting what they were saying in 2017, that those additional kilometers were possible thanks to a few re-alignments).
  • Second, the RFP was rigged so that the lowest bidder would win, regardless of the technical scores.
  • Third, when Council was debating Stage 2 in March, staff were asked a simple question about the RFP process, whether or not a bidder who did not meet the technical score could win the bidding process, and they refused to answer even though this had nothing to do with the results and would have been publicly accessible years ago. Yet somehow, they were happy to say that the lowest bidders won, by hundreds of millions.
  • Fourth, and this is just speculation, it seems the Mayor and his closest allies were aware of this and had no issues attacking their skeptical colleagues when questioning staff. The fact is, elected officials are in place to question staff and put them in check. If they do nothing but rubber stamp anything staff presents, then what's the point of elected officials?

So I don't think there was corruption in the traditional sense, but staff, the Mayor and possibly some of his allies, withheld information from Councillors who try to practice proper oversight and rightfully questioned the process. That is probably why the winning bid was released so late and both Council and the public were not given any time to debate the cost overruns.

In conclusion, the bud wasn't rigged in favour of SNC Lavalin, but whoever presented the lowest bids and information was withheld from the public and Councillors who work for the citizens of Ottawa and not the Mayor's election platform.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1499  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2019, 6:14 PM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,702
One big flaw in the process was lumping together the Stage 2 C-line and T-line approvals. There should have been a way to vote yes on one and no to the other.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1500  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2019, 6:38 PM
PHrenetic PHrenetic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,029
Good Day.

To me, with my experience of RFP evaluations, it also perfectly exemplifies the extraordinary preponderance of Financial scorings over Technical scorings in the final 'analysis'.

OUCH !

AND. the latest business pages on SNC-Lavalin.....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/snc-lavalin-1.5232893
wherein they have yet again cut margins and projections, especially on the devolving turnkey projects arm of the organization.

One gets to wondering about just how and by how much they underbid to or beyond the bone to 'get the contract' ?
And will we pay the eventual 'price' for the 'miscalculation' ?

OUCH !
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:12 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.