Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[valo403]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

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.

Actually, they effectively are not, not if they want to continue to do business with the city. And this is real life, if these were private entities it's one thing, but when a government entity starts denying access to the legal system I have an issue with it. Heck, even between private parties clauses that are overly restrictive can be struck.

And don't tell me that you know the ins and outs of the deal if you don't. This issue wouldn't have even come up if Graham had no legitimate claim to payment.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by valo403

Actually, they effectively are not, not if they want to continue to do business with the city. And this is real life, if these were private entities it's one thing, but when a government entity starts denying access to the legal system I have an issue with it. Heck, even between private parties clauses that are overly restrictive can be struck.

And don't tell me that you know the ins and outs of the deal if you don't. This issue wouldn't have even come up if Graham had no legitimate claim to payment.

You've never had someone ask you for money they were absolutely not entitled to? That happens to me all the time in a wide variety of situations, including those with large businesses/dollars involved.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by valo403

And don't tell me that you know the ins and outs of the deal if you don't. This issue wouldn't have even come up if Graham had no legitimate claim to payment.

I suspect that Graham feels that the city's prequalification of the steel fabricators places some of the blame on the city for prequalifying this specific fabricator that really screwed up.

They may have a case if the city approved a contractor that actually was unqualified to do the work, or if the city was negligent somehow in doing the prequalification. However, I see no reason to suspect that the fabricator was incapable of doing the work - they had done similar type work in the past, probably without issue. Negligence is possible but really quite unlikely, the negligence would likely have to get by the whole city team that was working on it, with nobody noticing that something was wrong.

The most likely scenario (by far) is that the fabricator was capable of doing the job, but really screwed up this time. Like I said before, the fault is likely on the fabricator, but Graham can't get money out of them at this point. Graham is left out the money, and Graham is ultimately responsible for the subcontractor's work. The bridge, now finished, is completed to specs, and the city had a fixed price contract with Graham that paid Graham a specific amount of money to supply and build the bridge to those specs.

The bridge is built, contract is paid in full as per the agreement. Again, I don't know what would entitle Graham to more money. There would have to be a change in the scope of the project for Graham to claim more money, however, correcting problems with a bridge not welded to specifications is not a change in scope.

[moon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

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.

I am not a lawyer but how does a legit legal claim that is awarded by a court opening them up to fraudulent contractors?

I have no issue if they want to ban any contractor that brings fraudlent claims against them or even unsuccessful claims but to ban anyone who takes them to court even if their claims were legit seems to be a way to allow the city to bully companies into ignoring legit concerns.

Perhaps you allow a private company to act like this as they are the ones that have to deal with the reprecussions but for a city to possibly ignore the best company because the city screwed up and the company wanted the money they were rightly owed seems like a horrible policy.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You've never had someone ask you for money they were absolutely not entitled to? That happens to me all the time in a wide variety of situations, including those with large businesses/dollars involved.

Personally no, but I've had it happen to clients. That doesn't mean that Graham absolutely isn't entitled, they likely have at least a credible argument otherwise this issue wouldn't be raised. My point is simply that you can't just dismiss it as frivolous if you don't have actual knowledge of the contract and the facts.

[Burninator]

Graham could always pull the old contractor move of charging an exorbitant amount for something missing in the contract documents.

Oh you wanted two more lights than what the specs showed? Well for the administrative, lights, cable, administrative, install, demo, bulb and the administrative it'll be 1.2 million.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by valo403

Personally no, but I've had it happen to clients. That doesn't mean that Graham absolutely isn't entitled, they likely have at least a credible argument otherwise this issue wouldn't be raised. My point is simply that you can't just dismiss it as frivolous if you don't have actual knowledge of the contract and the facts.

I never dismissed it as frivolous, that was another poster. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, since I haven't seen the contract, I have no way of knowing.

However, your assertion that they have at least a credible argument or they wouldn't have raised it/asked for the money doesn't match my experiences. I've dealt with contractors many times, and they often ask for money they have no entitlement to. I find oftentimes the more "loudly" and emphatically they ask, and the more veiled comments about lawyers they make, the less strong their actual claim is.

Just because Graham says so doesn't mean anything, imo.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by moon

I am not a lawyer but how does a legit legal claim that is awarded by a court opening them up to fraudulent contractors?

I have no issue if they want to ban any contractor that brings fraudlent claims against them or even unsuccessful claims but to ban anyone who takes them to court even if their claims were legit seems to be a way to allow the city to bully companies into ignoring legit concerns.

Perhaps you allow a private company to act like this as they are the ones that have to deal with the reprecussions but for a city to possibly ignore the best company because the city screwed up and the company wanted the money they were rightly owed seems like a horrible policy.

If the city cannot choose to not use a contractor that repeatedly makes claims against them, the potential exists for a contractor to take advantage of that.

Certainly the city should be allowed to consider the number of times a contractor has sued them in determining which contractor is the "best" contractor.

If the city screwed up knowingly, they would pay up. Something going to a lawsuit means that the matter of who screwed up is in dispute. It isn't worth it for anyone, including the city to go to court to fight a case they know they would lose.

In our dealings, there have been a few disputes about who is to blame, but most of them can be dealt with by offering to share the blame, and meeting in the middle. Its cheaper, easier and less risky than paying lawyers and fighting in court.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Graham could always pull the old contractor move of charging an exorbitant amount for something missing in the contract documents.

Oh you wanted two more lights than what the specs showed? Well for the administrative, lights, cable, administrative, install, demo, bulb and the administrative it'll be 1.2 million.

Not possible.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I never dismissed it as frivolous, that was another poster. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, since I haven't seen the contract, I have no way of knowing.

However, your assertion that they have at least a credible argument or they wouldn't have raised it/asked for the money doesn't match my experiences. I've dealt with contractors many times, and they often ask for money they have no entitlement to. I find oftentimes the more "loudly" and emphatically they ask, and the more veiled comments about lawyers they make, the less strong their actual claim is.

Just because Graham says so doesn't mean anything, imo.

This, the less reasonable they act, the less reasonable their claim is.

If a claim is reasonable, it can be dealt with in a reasonable manner nearly 100% of the time.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I never dismissed it as frivolous, that was another poster. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, since I haven't seen the contract, I have no way of knowing.

However, your assertion that they have at least a credible argument or they wouldn't have raised it/asked for the money doesn't match my experiences. I've dealt with contractors many times, and they often ask for money they have no entitlement to. I find oftentimes the more "loudly" and emphatically they ask, and the more veiled comments about lawyers they make, the less strong their actual claim is.

Just because Graham says so doesn't mean anything, imo.

Have those contractors been facing a situation where they would be barred from a massive amount of high dollar figure contracts simply by bringing a suit?

I should add that I'm operating here under the assumption that Graham actually intends to sue, which could very well not be the case.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

If the city cannot choose to not use a contractor that repeatedly makes claims against them, the potential exists for a contractor to take advantage of that.

Certainly the city should be allowed to consider the number of times a contractor has sued them in determining which contractor is the "best" contractor.

If the city screwed up knowingly, they would pay up. Something going to a lawsuit means that the matter of who screwed up is in dispute. It isn't worth it for anyone, including the city to go to court to fight a case they know they would lose.

In our dealings, there have been a few disputes about who is to blame, but most of them can be dealt with by offering to share the blame, and meeting in the middle. Its cheaper, easier and less risky than paying lawyers and fighting in court.

That's a pretty fanciful notion. There are casebooks full of examples where that certainly didn't happen.

As for the first two paragraphs, this isn't a 'consider how many times they've sued' standard. This is a 'you sued us once, you're done' standard. Nothing is being considered. If this accurately reflects that actual policy, it's nothing more than a bully tactic, which is an issue when utilized by a government entity.

[GP_Matt]

Like everyone else, I haven't read the cities policy on banning contractors from future work, but I would guess that it is more along the lines that the city has a dispute resolution procedure that they want the contractor to follow instead of the courts.
If said process is open and fair then I can see the cities point to avoid the courts.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Like everyone else, I haven't read the cities policy on banning contractors from future work, but I would guess that it is more along the lines that the city has a dispute resolution procedure that they want the contractor to follow instead of the courts.
If said process is open and fair then I can see the cities point to avoid the courts.

That's a good point, if there is an alternative means to resolving a dispute then I don't have an issue.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Like everyone else, I haven't read the cities policy on banning contractors from future work, but I would guess that it is more along the lines that the city has a dispute resolution procedure that they want the contractor to follow instead of the courts.
If said process is open and fair then I can see the cities point to avoid the courts.

I would think that this is the reasoning. A ban may sound harsh, but the goal is to resolve disputes before they end up in court, as going to court costs the city (and in turn taxpayers) a lot of money.

A ban is a pretty good motivator for contractors to use other means of dispute resolution. Even if the policy is written to be black and white, that wouldn't stop council from "breaking policy" if they thought it was reasonable to do so.

If Graham did end up bringing a lawsuit, and in the future Graham bid on city projects, they city wouldn't not consider Graham for larger projects if their bid was the best. If the city was other wise going to use Graham in the future because they were $5 million cheaper than anyone else, and the city figured they were capable of doing the work, council would grant an exception if needed.

[Erick Estrada]

Wow this thread is still alive! What was the total tab on this bridge anyway? Is the city still hiding the total cost after all the repairs and delays?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Wow this thread is still alive! What was the total tab on this bridge anyway? Is the city still hiding the total cost after all the repairs and delays?

haha just read the last couple of pages?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

haha just read the last couple of pages?

No. Maybe on a 10 page thread I would go back but this thing is 130 pages and I don't have all day lol.

Edit: LOL it seems like everyone involved in this bridge in one way or another got duped into spending more than anticipated. Still as far as I know the city has never made the actual costs known.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

No. Maybe on a 10 page thread I would go back but this thing is 130 pages and I don't have all day lol.

Oh sorry about that, I'll summarize it. The city is on the hook for about double the cost, it's a huge blow to the city of Calgary and Nenshi. Council is looking at ways to dip into the budget to correct this oversight and come up with the extra cash. Bunk has stated that this is such a snafu that Nenshi could step down as Mayor, for fear of being kicked out.

CaptainCrunch still finds the bridge inspiring and has been in awe of it since day one.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I would think that this is the reasoning. A ban may sound harsh, but the goal is to resolve disputes before they end up in court, as going to court costs the city (and in turn taxpayers) a lot of money.

A ban is a pretty good motivator for contractors to use other means of dispute resolution.

There are all sorts of ways to resolve disputes: negotiation, arbitration, mediation. However, the justice system, and in particular the courts, go to great lengths to serve as a fair and impartial dispute resolution mechanism. There is no good reason for the city to punish parties who ultimately, and at great risk and cost to themselves, choose to rely on that mechanism. They have every right to do so.

If the city is successful in defending the claim, it will be awarded costs to at least partially recover the costs of litigating the matter. However, at the end of the day, litigation is a cost of doing business when one is dealing with million dollar contracts. That is just the way it is.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Even if the policy is written to be black and white, that wouldn't stop council from "breaking policy" if they thought it was reasonable to do so. If Graham did end up bringing a lawsuit, and in the future Graham bid on city projects, they city wouldn't not consider Graham for larger projects if their bid was the best. If the city was other wise going to use Graham in the future because they were $5 million cheaper than anyone else, and the city figured they were capable of doing the work, council would grant an exception if needed.

It seems strange to defend a policy by saying "don't worry, we can avoid the absurd consequences of the policy by not following it."