Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by 4X4

And the Romans hate Vittoriano.

Ah yes, the wedding cake. I didn't mind it on my trips to Rome. But I can easily see how so many don't like it.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Calgary hated the Centre St bridge. Felt it was too expensive, fancy and was designed by a foreigner.

And we finally tried to blow it up in a Steven Seagal movie.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

They didn't sole source a $25 million dollar bridge. They sole sourced the design of said bridge, something which the city does all the time, for good reason.

And didn't they award the construction to the lowest bidder, as per city policy? And don't we have bad welds as a result of that lowest bidder? And isn't that what might possibly put this thing over budget?

So it sounds like, despite being criticized as extravagant and expensive, the city's policy of accepting the lowest bidder is causing the delays and extra costs.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

And didn't they award the construction to the lowest bidder, as per city policy? And don't we have bad welds as a result of that lowest bidder? And isn't that what might possibly put this thing over budget?

So it sounds like, despite being criticized as extravagant and expensive, the city's policy of accepting the lowest bidder is causing the delays and extra costs.

No, accepting the lowest bidder did not cause the delays. At best, that is a very simplified way of putting it.

There is no reason to not accept the lowest bid unless you suspect that the trade submitting the bid is incapable of doing the work. I'm sure that the Spanish welders were well capable of doing the work properly. A trade that wasn't the low bid could have screwed up just as easily, except they didn't get the opportunity to.

It's not like a homeowner buying carpet, or furniture, or something and buying the cheapest one, then complaining when it isn't very good quality. For projects like this, there are minimum specs that the work has to achieve. Trades don't submit low bids for lesser quality work, they all submit bids for exactly the same work. That's why the lowest bid is almost always used.

[Jimmy Stang]

^ Thanks for the clarification. Now, if I may ask a couple more (honest but probably silly) questions, to what extent are the other parties held accountable for the poor work? If there was ever a project that the city would like to avoid being over budget, this is it. Can the city say no if the contractor comes begging for more money? Can the contractor walk away and leave a 3/4 finished bridge?

I can imagine that there are countless projects that go over budget for various reasons, and most likely on a much larger scale than this one might be. The public perception of any overage on the bridge will surely be disproportionate when compared to much larger overages on other projects, but that pretty much sums up this bridge since inception.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

And didn't they award the construction to the lowest bidder, as per city policy? And don't we have bad welds as a result of that lowest bidder? And isn't that what might possibly put this thing over budget?

So it sounds like, despite being criticized as extravagant and expensive, the city's policy of accepting the lowest bidder is causing the delays and extra costs.

There's more to it than that as well. Typically any maufactured project over a certain budget say <$250,000 is usually inspected (Factory Acceptance Tested) at the manufacturer's site by the purchasing company prior to shipping. This way if the goods are not as advertized or not up to specifications the shipment release is not signed off until re-work, repair, etc. is performed. I assume the city probably paid the Spanish manufacturer some payments as the job progressed to cover some of the manufacturer's overhead for materials but this would be their way of holding complete payment and shipment authorization until the bridge was corrected.

I have no idea why the city would have chosen to have the welds inspected after the bridge was shipped as they have now lost a lot of leverage. The city says that the manufacturer will cover the cost of the re-work but that's just pulling wool over the eyes of taxpayers as most if not all of the order has now been paid to the Spanish manufacturer who probably bidded with low margins in the first place. There's no way they are going to write a check back for what the re-work especially considering how much more it costs to do that work in Alberta compared to Spain. After all the new welds have been completed the city will have to pay for non-destructive testing on the new welds so that means they will pay for that twice. Then there's the cost of re-finishing, etc. The majority of this will end up coming out of taxpayer money I'm afraid.

It's a huge mess and trust me we will never, ever, find out the actual cost and how much it goes over budget. Everyone involved in this mess should never be allowed to step foot in city hall again. A disaster from start to finish.

[shermanator]

I bet you that if the $50 mil for the 2 bridges was put towards, say, a new Flames arena, we'd all be ecstatic. To each their own.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

^ Thanks for the clarification. Now, if I may ask a couple more (honest but probably silly) questions, to what extent are the other parties held accountable for the poor work? If there was ever a project that the city would like to avoid being over budget, this is it. Can the city say no if the contractor comes begging for more money? Can the contractor walk away and leave a 3/4 finished bridge?

I can imagine that there are countless projects that go over budget for various reasons, and most likely on a much larger scale than this one might be. The public perception of any overage on the bridge will surely be disproportionate when compared to much larger overages on other projects, but that pretty much sums up this bridge since inception.

The contractor can't ask for more money unless there is a change of scope in the work. Correcting poor work isn't a change in the scope of work. So, yes, the city can say no.

The contractor could walk away, but they would mostly ruin their company by doing so. The bonding company would take over to get the project completed. The bonding company can come after the company to get their money back, and can even go after the company owners personally, if need be. Secondly, the contractor would likely be sued for breach of contract. Thirdly, the contractor would likely never get a city contract again. Fourthly, the contractor's bonding status could be reduced, hurting there chances of getting ANY projects elsewhere, and at least making the cost of obtaining construction bonds greater.

Walking away from a contract could really screw you over.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by fotze

Ya, the bidding out or the welding and construction to the lowest bidders is what is pooching it.

see my post above.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

see my post above.

Theres a reason in the oil and gas industry we throw out the lowest bid. It often turns into a disaster.

[BlackArcher101]

I thought the city didn't directly contract the work out to the spanish shop and it was sub-contracted via the general instead?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Theres a reason in the oil and gas industry we throw out the lowest bid. It often turns into a disaster.

You do it if it's way low - i.e. you suspect that the subcontractor missed something. If the bids are close, what's the point? If the contractor is capable of doing the work, what's the point? If contractors were worried about subcontractor performance, they could require Performance Bonds from the subcontractors. It would cost less to require a bond from all subcontractors than to always throw out the lowest bid.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

I thought the city didn't directly contract the work out to the spanish shop and it was sub-contracted via the general instead?

Yes, the Spanish steel is a subcontract. But the contractor is responsible to the city for the work of subcontractors.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by fotze

More likely they say "holy fata, this fata up is going to be catastrophically expensive so, lets go to the ends of earth to prove that we are delivering to spec or close to the intended spec".

It doesn't really help to go to the ends of the earth when a simple check by a professional engineer can say that it doesn't meet the specs.

I don't know if there was bonds in place for the steel contractor in this case, but like I said above, having one pretty much eliminates the chances of the subcontractor running away. Even if they didn't have one, they would still get sued and likely lose more money than they would have had they just kept going at the project.

[burn_this_city]

Graham.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by fotze

Who is that contractor?

The following organizations will construct the Peace Bridge:
General Contractor
Graham Infrastructure

Subcontractors
Steel Fabrication and Coating Supplier - Augescon
Steel Erector – Graham Infrastructure
Glazing Supplier and Installer – GIG Fassaden
Piling – Big Eagle Services

From the peace bridge page on the city's website.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think I have heard of Graham.

They do a whole lot of work in the city. Their signs are everywhere.

[Violator]

Whens this bridge supposed to be done?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Violator

Whens this bridge supposed to be done?

Pick a date, you'll have a better chance of being right than anything the city has given to us as a completion date. It's been pushed back three times already.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Violator

Whens this bridge supposed to be done?

October...2010.