Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2016 Auditor General (Ontario) Lowlights
#1
Auditor general reveals astonishing details of the Ontario Liberals’ infrastructure incompetence

Chris Selley

Over the next decade, the Ontario government plans to spend $17 billion rehabilitating existing infrastructure, mostly on roads and bridges, and $31 billion on new infrastructure, mostly on public transit — much of the latter in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. For some weary commuters, the promise of relief might be one of the few remaining attractions Premier Kathleen Wynne’s phenomenally unpopular administration has to offer — assuming, of course, they have some degree of confidence their money will be spent properly.

Page 491 of Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk’s latest report, released Wednesday, has something to say about that.
The scene: the Pickering GO station. Metrolinx was to build a pedestrian bridge across Highway 401. Not a herculean feat, one might have thought. Alas the winning bidder “had no experience in installing bridge trusses” — which is “something that a contractor constructing a bridge would be expected to know how to do,” Lysyk’s report dryly notes.


After the contractor “installed one truss upside down” — no, seriously — Metrolinx essentially took over the project. But it paid the contractor the full $19-million for the first phase of the project anyway. Then it gave the same contractors the contract for phase two — hey, it had the low bid! — and lo and behold they pooped the bed again, damaging glass to the tune of $1 million and building a stairway too wide to accommodate the planned cladding.

At this point, Metrolinx terminated the contract. It paid 99 per cent of the bill anyway. And later — no, seriously! — it gave the company another $39 million contract. “Metrolinx lacks a process to prevent poorly performing contractors from bidding on future contracts,” the report observes. Transport Minister Steven Del Duca said a new “vendor performance management system” would do just that, but one wonders why something so fancy-sounding was necessary to perform such a basic function.

That footbridge is the most spectacular item in the report’s cavalcade of nonsense, but not by all that much: other concerns at Metrolinx include failing to bother trying to recover cost overruns due to design consultants’ errors and late project delivery. It basically cuts cheques to CN and CP with no idea whether it’s getting what it pays for.

Over at the Ministry of Transportation proper, Lysyk found a similar brand of chaos. Would it surprise you to learn that newly laid highways are supposed to last for 15 years? Not your fault. They rarely do. Some of them last as little as five years, Lysyk found. Cracks often appear within one or two. The government paid $12 million to prematurely repair a section of Highway 403 that cost $23 million to pave in the first place, Lysyk found — including a bonus to the contractor for using good-quality asphalt, which it was supposed to do anyway. That was far from a unique case.

The culprit? Bad asphalt. Tons of it. Bad asphalt is much cheaper than good asphalt, the report notes. There are tests for bad asphalt, of course, but for reasons one couldn’t begin to speculate about the Ontario Hot Mix Producers Association (OHMPA) and the Ontario Road Builders’ Association (ORBA) — which enjoy a “collaborative” relationship with the government — strongly suggested the ministry not implement them. So for many years, against staff advice, it didn’t. It still hasn’t implemented both tests across the board.

Contractors themselves are in charge of collecting asphalt samples, delivering them to a lab and reporting the results. To the shock of absolutely no one, some took liberties. In 2014, the report notes, a “whistleblower explained that the contractor would submit good samples for testing purposes but lay poor-quality asphalt on highways.” (It doesn’t exactly take Moriarty to get one over on this gang.)

This confirmed longstanding suspicions at the Ministry, who alerted its Forensic Investigation Team, which didn’t do anything. “When we met with the OPP, they told us that they thought the information provided by the whistleblower was credible,” Lysyk reports, “but they did not conduct an investigation as they were waiting for the Ministry to provide additional information if it wanted to start an investigation, which it did not.” Oh well.


Apropos of nothing, the OHMPA gave $9,740 to the Liberals in 2015; the ORBA gave $14,001; combined, the top 10 provincial contractors, four of whom are also asphalt suppliers, gave $101,255.

On the bright side, the Ministry reports it has “already implemented a province-wide trial” — best not move too fast! — “where the care and control of samples was undertaken by the Ministry or its agents.” Del Duca said that would be general practice as of 2017. He disputed that bonuses were paid merely for fulfilling contractual agreements, but the ministry did commit to “review our current practice” on the matter. (It actually “stopped tracking the amounts” of bonuses paid after 2012, Lysyk found, “because of increased workload and lack of time.”)

Progressives like to insist concerns about government waste and spending are overblown, or at least hardly unique to the public sector. And indeed it’s important to remember that many projects do get built competently, on budget and on time.
But what we see here is a failure to implement or enforce even the most basic management controls or safeguards over public money. With the gas-plant stench of political shamelessness and corporate donations hovering over Queen’s Park, it is only logical for people to be furious.

Lysyk’s exhausting 800-page report also found, notably, that the government was spending millions on advertising that promoted itself; and that it still hadn’t managed to roll out electronic health records completely after 14 years and $8 billion spent. It would be remarkable, surely, if it ever got a chance to declare mission accomplished on that file — but these Liberals have won remarkable elections before.
National Post
_____________________________________
I used to be the mayor of sim city. I know what I am talking about.
Reply
#2
If they were in a lawsuit with the contractor there would have probably been some easy to justify reason to disqualify them from bidding.

Either way they didn't do the work they shouldn't have paid and sued them to be made whole.

As for the asphalt I am not surprised, it always seemed like the 401 was getting freshly paved every 4 years and had some nasty potholes one particular year.
Reply
#3
The good news is that the Province seems to be paying attention and improving its processes. That's often not the case wrt AudGen reports, which get treated by the media like holy script but by governments as observations that might or might not be acted upon.
Reply
#4
Quite possibly the phase 2 contract was granted before the truss fiasco. Without timeline info, there is no way to know.
Reply
#5
(12-04-2016, 11:47 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Quite possibly the phase 2 contract was granted before the truss fiasco.  Without timeline info, there is no way to know.

The report indicates otherwise:


" ... After the contractor “installed one truss upside down” — no, seriously — Metrolinx essentially took over the project. But it paid the contractor the full $19-million for the first phase of the project anyway. Then it gave the same contractors the contract for phase two ... "  (my bold)
Reply
#6
(12-04-2016, 01:41 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(12-04-2016, 11:47 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Quite possibly the phase 2 contract was granted before the truss fiasco.  Without timeline info, there is no way to know.

The report indicates otherwise:


" ... After the contractor “installed one truss upside down” — no, seriously — Metrolinx essentially took over the project. But it paid the contractor the full $19-million for the first phase of the project anyway. Then it gave the same contractors the contract for phase two ... "  (my bold)

While I am inclined to believe in that level of incompetence at Metrolinx, it’s not really appropriate to assume that the article is correct at that level of detail. A journalist could easily have written the text you highlighted in the scenario where the timeline in effect meant they had already awarded the second contract. The real question is why a contractor not fulfilling their contract would be paid in full.
Reply
#7
(12-04-2016, 02:57 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(12-04-2016, 01:41 PM)panamaniac Wrote: The report indicates otherwise:


" ... After the contractor “installed one truss upside down” — no, seriously — Metrolinx essentially took over the project. But it paid the contractor the full $19-million for the first phase of the project anyway. Then it gave the same contractors the contract for phase two ... "  (my bold)

While I am inclined to believe in that level of incompetence at Metrolinx, it’s not really appropriate to assume that the article is correct at that level of detail. A journalist could easily have written the text you highlighted in the scenario where the timeline in effect meant they had already awarded the second contract. The real question is why a contractor not fulfilling their contract would be paid in full.

Agreed on both points.  AG's actual report probably has more detail but newspapers rarely report that.
Reply
#8
Just to note that the implication in the AudGen's report is the same as that in the report:

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annu...09en16.pdf

" ... Metrolinx terminated a contract with another poorly performing contractor, paid it almost the full amount, and then re-hired it for another contract. Metrolinx hired the same contractor for Phase 2 of a project to install external cladding (cover) for a pedestrian bridge over Highway 401 even though the contractor had performed extremely poorly on Phase 1. ... "
Reply
#9
(12-05-2016, 11:13 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Just to note that the implication in the AudGen's report is the same as that in the report:

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annu...09en16.pdf

" ... Metrolinx terminated a contract with another poorly performing contractor, paid it almost the full amount, and then re-hired it for another contract. Metrolinx hired the same contractor for Phase 2 of a project to install external cladding (cover) for a pedestrian bridge over Highway 401 even though the contractor had performed extremely poorly on Phase 1. ... "

Thanks for taking the time to read the actual source document ;-)
Reply
#10
(12-05-2016, 12:11 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(12-05-2016, 11:13 AM)panamaniac Wrote: Just to note that the implication in the AudGen's report is the same as that in the report:

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annu...09en16.pdf

" ... Metrolinx terminated a contract with another poorly performing contractor, paid it almost the full amount, and then re-hired it for another contract. Metrolinx hired the same contractor for Phase 2 of a project to install external cladding (cover) for a pedestrian bridge over Highway 401 even though the contractor had performed extremely poorly on Phase 1. ... "

Thanks for taking the time to read the actual source document ;-)

No problem.  After my 4th coffee, I was feeling slightly manic this morning. Wink
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)