Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by fotze

On that note, why the hell have they ripped out all the brand new trees and irrigation lines in the median of memorial along there. Hope someone gets in trouble for that.

Most of the trees didn't make it though the winter. Irrigation system might be kaput I'm guessing.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

That is what Edmonton spent 28.2 million on. I would say ours is just slightly better designed.

Another homage to the Oil Derrick, at least Edmonton is consistent at sucking at everything.

Looks like the Golden Gate bridge if a 3 year old drew it.

Oil derrick? Uh-huh.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm not typically into the Calgary vs Edmonton thing, but I vastly prefer our bridge. I'd be disappointed with that thing if I lived in Edmonton.

Even the St. Patrick's Island Bridge is better than that one.

[nik-]

Wait a minute ... pic 2 of 5

"The bridge officially opened in fall 2010, but weather cancelled previous celebrations"

Almost two years of cancellations ... awesome.

[Bigtime]

It's back...

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...#ixzz2NQJILw1a

...Mac Logan, the city’s transportation general manager, confirmed Graham Infrastructure has formally demanded compensation beyond its $17,995,000 “fixed price” contract.

All he would say is: “It’s a lot of money."

...The contractor could also take the city to court, but that comes at a high cost. Council policy states that any contractor that makes a legal claim against the city is prohibited from getting future city contracts — something that would deal a financial blow to Graham, which has worked on much larger projects, including the west LRT and Glenmore-Elbow interchange.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I just can't see how Graham would risk taking this to court, as they do a HUGE amount of work with the city (including the 2nd pedestrian bridge in the East Village). Also factor in the fact that the current council is not interested in paying a cent more than the contract stipulated.

Welcome back to your daily dose of Peace bridge controversy!


Peace Bridge, Calgary by E. Issa, on Flickr

[Bmuzyka]

I see the contractors point though, many of the delays and cost adders were not thier responsibility. I would like to know who hired the module fabricator in Spain, whether it was directly contracted by the city, or Graham issued the contract. If Graham did, then they need to eat the cost, but if the City issued that contract, and Grahams costs were driven up as a result of the shotty workmanship of the product they were hired to assemble, then the city needs to be accountable and pay those costs.

Lump Sum contracts nearly always have provisions for adjustments based on delays caused by the client (In this case the city, and thier contactor for pre-fabbing the bridge sections)

[Bigtime]

^^^ I'm wondering who signed off on the fabricated steel sections before they left Spain? Was it the City or Graham? If it was Graham I would think they are all but hooped then. If it was the City, well as you said then they most likely have a leg to stand on. But if council won't give them a dime more their only option is to take the City to court, which will ban them from getting any future City contracts.

Seems like a Catch 22 for Graham.

[Rhettzky]

Since it opened last March 24, the once-fiery controversy over the red steel bridge has largely quieted, as critical acclaim has rolled in and thousands daily walk, run and bicycle across it.

This part reminded me of that poster who was counting the people crossing the bridge in a snowstorm when it first opened and saying that no one was using it. Too funny!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

But if council won't give them a dime more their only option is to take the City to court, which will ban them from getting any future City contracts.

This strikes me as a totally unfair policy. Frankly, I'm surprised that Alberta's legislation permits this (i.e., there is likely legislation which requires municipalities to formally tender contracts over x dollars, and that sets out how that tender process is to be carried out.)

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

^^^ I'm wondering who signed off on the fabricated steel sections before they left Spain? Was it the City or Graham? If it was Graham I would think they are all but hooped then. If it was the City, well as you said then they most likely have a leg to stand on. But if council won't give them a dime more their only option is to take the City to court, which will ban them from getting any future City contracts.

Seems like a Catch 22 for Graham.

Maybe I am not remembering correctly, but I think Graham chose the welder from a list of pre approved contractors the city gave them. I think it was up to Graham to actually verify the work that pre approved contractor did was up to spec. I don't think the city inspected the welds until they were installed in Calgary.

Again, I could be wrong, it was a year ago, but if what I remember is true, ultimately to me it would be up to the contractor to verify actual work regardless if the city had approved a company list to work with.

[mykalberta]

It all depends on the contract, Graham wouldnt be bringing this up if the amount wasnt large and if they didnt think the contract favoured them.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Maybe I am not remembering correctly, but I think Graham chose the welder from a list of pre approved contractors the city gave them. I think it was up to Graham to actually verify the work that pre approved contractor did was up to spec. I don't think the city inspected the welds until they were installed in Calgary.

Again, I could be wrong, it was a year ago, but if what I remember is true, ultimately to me it would be up to the contractor to verify actual work regardless if the city had approved a company list to work with.

This is it exactly.

The city pre-qualified steel fabricators.

The qualified fabricators could then submit bids to the General contractors for the main tender.

The fabricator was a subtrade of Graham, and that means that Graham was fully responsible for the work of the subtrade. It would not be the city's responsibility to inspect the fabrication work until it was signing off on it at the end of the project.

"Our supplier did a crap job" is not a reason for a change order.

With the known details, I don't see a reason why Graham would be entitled to receive more money than their fixed price contract.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Makarov

This strikes me as a totally unfair policy. Frankly, I'm surprised that Alberta's legislation permits this (i.e., there is likely legislation which requires municipalities to formally tender contracts over x dollars, and that sets out how that tender process is to be carried out.)

Yeah I can't figure out how that's legal. It essentially prevents access to legal recourse, which obviously goes against the spirit of the entire justice system.

[burn_this_city]

Obviously Graham thinks they have a legitimate shot at recouping some money from the city. Like I've said all along, if the city pushed Graham to use the spanish steel fabricator to save money, then they might have a case for the rework.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Makarov

This strikes me as a totally unfair policy. Frankly, I'm surprised that Alberta's legislation permits this (i.e., there is likely legislation which requires municipalities to formally tender contracts over x dollars, and that sets out how that tender process is to be carried out.)

It could be liability thing where The City identifies the firm as too risky to deal with due to their likeliness to engage in unnecessary and costly litigation.

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Obviously Graham thinks they have a legitimate shot at recouping some money from the city.

Or they believe this is their last shot at getting anything.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Addick

It could be liability thing where The City identifies the firm as too risky to deal with due to their likeliness to engage in unnecessary and costly litigation.

Right, which would be fair enough in the event that an action brought by said contractor was found (by the court) to be vexatious or totally without merit. However, it doesn't sound like the city's policy makes this distinction (in fairness though, we only have an unsubstantiated second hand account of the policy at this point, so who knows what the actual policy is [if one even exists.])

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Addick

It could be liability thing where The City identifies the firm as too risky to deal with due to their likeliness to engage in unnecessary and costly litigation.

If it said that any firm that unsuccessfully sued the city would be barred then that could make sense, but as it is (at least based on what we have here) it pretty much says 'we can screw you over and if you ever want to do business again you're going to shut your mouth and like it'. That's all well and good for private companies, but for a municipality to take that stance is troubling.

Edit: What he ^^ said

[You Need a Thneed]

In reality, this is nearly completely the supplier's fault. However, they've likely already been paid much more than their contract minus the damages cost.

Unfortunately for Graham, they are ultimately responsible, they are out the money, and it isn't anyone's duty to reimburse any of that money to them.

Originally Posted by Addick

It could be liability thing where The City identifies the firm as too risky to deal with due to their likeliness to engage in unnecessary and costly litigation.

Think about it this way. You have hired a contractor to do some work on your house, which is done (with a few hiccups along the way), and you've paid them all the money that they are entitled to. They then sue you to try and get more money out of you. No matter what the result of the lawsuit is, are you going to hire the same company again to do your next project?

I don't know why the city shouldn't have the right to do the same thing as any private company would do. Not allowing the city to pick who they want to give contracts to could very easily open them up to fraudulent contractors who would repeated sue the city. Saying Graham couldn't bid on projects doesn't mean that projects wouldn't get tendered.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

In reality, this is nearly completely the supplier's fault. However, they've likely already been paid much more than their contract minus the damages cost.

Unfortunately for Graham, they are ultimately responsible, they are out the money, and it isn't anyone's duty to reimburse any of that money to them.



Think about it this way. You have hired a contractor to do some work on your house, which is done (with a few hiccups along the way), and you've paid them all the money that they are entitled to. They then sue you to try and get more money out of you. No matter what the result of the lawsuit is, are you going to hire the same company again to do your next project?

I don't know why the city shouldn't have the right to do the same thing as any private company would do. Not allowing the city to pick who they want to give contracts to could very easily open them up to fraudulent contractors who would repeated sue the city. Saying Graham couldn't bid on projects doesn't mean that projects wouldn't get tendered.

OR, the contract includes language that would require you to pay additional sums for certain things that may occur in the future, and the contractor has every right to collect those sums. Somehow you've concluded that Graham has no right to this money, when the fact is we have no idea. A policy that allows a taxpayer funded entity to deny access to legal recourse is fundamentally flawed.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by valo403

OR, the contract includes language that would require you to pay additional sums for certain things that may occur in the future, and the contractor has every right to collect those sums. Somehow you've concluded that Graham has no right to this money, when the fact is we have no idea. A policy that allows a taxpayer funded entity to deny access to legal recourse is fundamentally flawed.

Yes we do have an idea.

What owner is going to include a clause in a contract that allows a contractor to collect MORE money in the case that the contractor screws up?


No one said that Graham isn't entitled to legal recourse. They absolutely are. However, just like anywhere in real life, if you take legal recourse, you risk severing the relationship built up between the two parties.