audit of construction supervision - Documents

Transcription

Office of the Auditor General / Bureau du vérificateur général
AUDIT OF CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION
2012
VÉRIFICATION DE LA SURVEILLANCE DE LA CONSTRUCTION
Audit of Construction Supervision
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................i
RÉSUMÉ ........................................................................................................................... xxxiii
1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................ 1
2 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................ 1
3 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 5
4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 7
5 AREAS OF POTENTIAL SAVINGS ............................................................................ 43
6 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 44
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................................................................... 44
APPENDIX A – CHANGE ORDER TABLES ................................................................... 45
Office of the Auditor General 2012 Annual Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Audit of Construction Supervision was included in the 2012 Audit Plan of the
Office of the Auditor General (OAG), approved by City Council on December 14,
2011.
Background
Council Members brought nine projects to the attention of the Auditor General, for
review. The projects examined were constructed in 2010 and 2011, except for two
that were constructed in 2004 and 2006. A sample was selected from the projects
completed in 2011 and 2012.
Audit Objectives
Audit Objective No. 1 - Examine and evaluate the processes and methodologies
pertaining to the Construction Supervision Procedures followed by the City.
Criteria:
Review of tender documents
Examination of tendering process, including design/build projects
Procedures for selection of contractor
Review of contract documents
Construction administration files
Assignment of project manager, project supervisor and inspectors
Construction inspection tasks and procedures
Procedures for management of change orders and extra work orders
Claims process procedures
Audit Objective No. 2 - Determine whether the processes and methodologies are
consistent and compliant with all relevant policies, procedures, legislation and
regulations.
Criteria:
Project management procedures
Procedures for transfer of project from design to construction
Tendering process
Page i
Contract administration process
Cost control
Management of change and extra work orders
Inspection procedures
Management of claims by contractor
Audit Objective No. 3 - Examine nine specific projects and specific issues brought
to the attention of the Auditor General by Members of Council, to determine if they
are consistent with relevant policies, procedures, legislation, and regulations.
Criteria:
Review of specific projects and issues indicated by Councillors
Selection of type of contract
Quality control and quality assurance procedures
Claims management
Cost control
Audit Objective No. 4 - Examine a sample of ten construction projects completed in
2011 to determine if they are consistent with relevant policies, procedures,
legislation, and regulations.
Criteria:
Review of ten sample projects
Page ii
Claims management
Cost control
AUDIT SCOPE
The audit scope consists of a review the construction supervision process used
during construction of capital works projects by the City.
The audit examined the following projects that have been brought to the attention
of the Auditor General by Councillors. The review focussed on the specific
concerns raised by the Councillors, as follows:
Transitway – Installation of manhole covers along the travelled lanes and on the
path of the bus wheels.
Gloucester Hornets Nest – Review of cost compared to the size of the project;
review the procurement process.
Townline Bridge Replacement, Structure 433080 – Contractor with poor
performance was awarded the contract, previous project not completed on time,
increase in risk to City. Note that this project was completed in 2004.
Cavanagh Bridge (John Shaw Road), Structure 433040 – Contract awarded to
same contractor as Structure 433080, the issues are the same. Note that this
project was completed in 2006.
Dunrobin Road Culvert, Structure 338180 – Culvert was flooded, was
rehabilitated, flooded again, and was replaced completely in 2011.
King Edward Avenue Reconstruction – Concerns with basement cracks in a
number of properties.
Woodroffe Avenue Watermain Replacement – Following a watermain break in
January 2011, construction did not start until April 2011. The concern is whether
the work could have been done in the winter or early spring. Summer
construction affected the residents, including water restrictions due to the
temporary water service.
John Leroux (Stittsville) Arena Upgrades – The roof repairs were delayed until
late 2009 because the materials would not fit the curvature of the roof. Work
was not completed until 2010. In addition, the use of design-build in
comparison to conventional design-tender-build projects to be assessed.
Goulbourn Recreation Complex – Ice pad addition was started in 2011 and
completed in 2012. There is a concern with quality assurance and control, and
how it may affect the project warranty.
Page iii
To provide context of the overall process to the review of the projects raised by the
Councillors, the following ten projects completed in 2011 and 2012 were examined,
representing a total construction value of $123,766,000, which constitute
approximately 11% of the total budget value of the projects that were active in the
City in 2011. The ten projects include projects of small, medium and large size. The
following projects were selected as a representative sample based on these criteria:
Figure 1: Selected Projects Reviewed
Per Infrastructure Services Department
Estimate at
Completion
Cost ($000s)
Projects
1
SW Transitway Extension (North) Stage 1 - Fallowfield to $17,568
Berrigan
2
Woodroffe Ave. Watermain Replacement (Baseline to Navaho) $4,827
3
Sandridge Rd (Hillsdale Rd to Merriman Ave) - Road, $8,000
Watermain & Sewer
4
Centrepointe Theatre Expansion
$11,850
5
West Nepean Collector Sewer - CIPP Rehabilitation
$3,800
6
Campeau Dr. Water Pumping Station
$3,500
7
Strandherd Dr. (Crestway to Prince of Wales) incl. widening of $35,000
Prince of Wales
8
3W Feedermain Link - Phase 1, Part 1 (Ottawa River Pkwy to $32,000
Moodie)
9
Cave Creek Collector, Phase 1 (Harmer to Faraday)
10
Prince of Wales Roundabout Reconstruction at Central $1,221
Experimental Farm
TOTAL Estimate at Completion Cost of Projects Examined
$6,000
$123,766
Change orders were reviewed in the projects listed in Figure 1 and five of the
projects raised by Councillors, where change orders were applicable. In total
change orders of 15 projects were reviewed.
In all projects, we reviewed the costs in comparison with the authorities.
The audit encompassed the following tasks:
Review legislative framework;
Review City‟s policies, procedures, standards and practices;
Page iv
Review industry procedures, standards and practices;
Review background data;
Obtain and review all files for the project;
Conduct interviews with individuals involved in the various projects;
Conduct site visits, as required;
Prepare draft report for fact verification;
Conduct additional interviews for confirmation of issues, as required; and,
Submit draft report for management review.
Summary of Key Findings
General Findings
The findings below are related to Audit Objectives No. 1 - Examine and evaluate
the processes and methodologies pertaining to the Construction Supervision
Procedures followed by the City; and, Audit Objective No. 2 - Determine whether
the processes and methodologies are consistent and compliant with all relevant
policies, procedures, legislation and regulations.
1. The City uses a procurement process for construction services that requires
public solicitation of bids for the work. The procurement process is carried out
by Supply Branch. Bidding opportunities for construction projects are sent to
the Ottawa Construction Association (OCA), who publishes them and
administers the issue of tender documents for interested contractors.
Solicitations are not published in other tender advertising sites unless the project
requires highly specialized contractors, in which case the City uses MERX1.
2. Projects posted at the OCA are available for viewing on site or online by
members of the OCA. Non-members can purchase the tender documents at a
higher cost than members. The City has advised that tenders are published by
OCA in Link2Build, a new electronic bid advertisement board that has been in
use by OCA since 2012. Link2Build is a website that publishes construction bid
opportunities (primarily non-residential) published by local and regional
construction associations across Canada. During the audit, the solicitation
document process for non-members was tested by registering and downloading
the documents for one project.
The process was clear and relatively
straightforward.
3. Information provided by OCA indicates that approximately 9% of the total
Infrastructure Services Department tenders (110 out of 1,271) had tender
MERX is a well established and well-known electronic tendering service with Canada-wide scope,
which has been in operation since 1997.
1
Page v
document takers that were from outside of the Ottawa and surrounding area
(defined as 50 km from the City‟s boundary). Of these, five tenders were
awarded to contractors from outside the Ottawa and surrounding area,
comprising less than 1% of the total value of construction contracts awarded by
the City ($363,200,000).
4. The concern with the method of tender advertising is that the City only posts
tenders with the OCA (who publishes them in Link2Build, as noted above).
Consequently, tenders do not get a wide distribution outside of the City of
Ottawa. Tenders would receive wider distribution if they are published in more
general sites, such as MERX. It can be expected that advertising tenders in a
wider area will result in the City getting more bids which could result in lower
prices for the City contracts. It is noted that the City uses MERX for other
solicitations, including non-construction related request for proposals and
request for standing offers.
5. In its annual report to Council, Supply Branch analyzes the Delegation of
Authority reports to identify contracts awarded to and/or performed by local
companies. According to the annual report, when adjusted to remove goods and
services not available locally (e.g., transit buses are not manufactured in Ottawa,
nor is winter rock salt mined locally), approximately 94.5% of the City‟s annual
purchasing dollar was spent in Ottawa and the surrounding area.
Figure 2: Analysis of Local Purchasing by Quarter
Per Supply Branch
Q1:
2011
Q2:
2011
Q3:
2011
Q4:
2011
BEFORE removing purchases not available locally:
69.6%
85.7%
78.9%
80.7%
AFTER removing purchasing not available locally:
91.4%
92.9%
97.6%
93.7%
Page vi
Figure 3: Geographical Vendor Breakdown for 2009 to 2011 Contracts Awarded
Under Delegation of Authority
Per Supply Branch
2011
Region
2010
2009
Dollar Value
% of Total
Dollar Value
% of Total
Dollar Value
% of Total
Ottawa and area
Ontario
Quebec
All Others
$898,901,307
$22,897,121
$10,522,412
$18,607,380
94.5%
2.4%
1.1%
2.0%
$754,027,060
$18,187,233
$13,028,587
$12,077,843
94.6%
2.3%
1.6%
1.5%
$732,055,748
$24,918,710
$5,796,562
$4,805,783
95.4%
3.2%
0.8%
0.6%
Total
$950,928,220
100.0%
$797,320,723
100.0%
$767,576,803
100.0%
Supply Branch did a 2011 “buy local” analysis isolating only construction contracts.
Based on this analysis, 808 of the total 884 construction contracts awarded in 2011
(91.4%) were awarded to local firms. When considering dollar value, this figure
rises to 96.6%.
Figure 4: 2011 “Buy Local” of Construction Contracts
Per Supply Branch
# of
Construction
Contracts
Dollar Value
% of Dollar
Value
Ottawa & Area
808
$397,711,493
96.6%
Ontario
50
$11,995,007
2.9%
Quebec
21
$1,845,407
0.4%
Other
5
$226,940
0.1%
Total
884
$411,778,847
100.0%
Region
6. It is our opinion that savings may be achieved by advertising construction
project bid opportunities in widely used site that would reach a broader
audience outside of Ottawa.
7. The City‟s procedures for assignment of project managers and inspectors are
similar to the practice in other Ontario municipalities.
8. Contract administration and inspection tasks are well documented in the
Inspection Manual prepared by Infrastructure Services.
9. The projects examined, with one exception, were constructed using a designtender-construction format of procurement. The Dunrobin Road culvert
replacement was constructed using a time-and-materials basis.
10. The City carries out a bid analysis for all tenders, comparing the cost estimate
prepared before tendering with the various bids. This procedure is similar to
that used generally by other Ontario municipalities.
Page vii
11. The City uses formal contract documents for all the construction contracts
examined.
12. The Branch Manager and Program Manager assign the project manager to the
contract based on his/her experience. Inspectors are assigned from a pool of
inspectors, supplemented with consultants as required by workload or
expertise.
13. Purchasing By-law No. 50 of 2000 – A By-law of the City of Ottawa Respecting
Purchasing of Goods, Services and Construction. As noted on the City‟s website,
the Purchasing By-law has the objective of obtaining the best value when
purchasing goods, construction and services for the City, while treating
suppliers equitably. The guiding principle is that purchases be made using a
competitive process that is open, transparent and fair to all suppliers. We
examined the application of the By-law to the process of acquiring construction
services.
14. The Project Manager Manual (PMM) provides detailed guidance and instruction
on requirements for tendering of the projects. Supply Branch coordinates with
the Ottawa Construction Association to place the Request for Tenders, and the
project manager provides input during the tendering period.
15. The PMM makes provisions for the steps to be taken when the construction
administration and inspection is done by a consultant.
16. The PMM contains directions regarding questions during tendering and
addendum procedures.
17. Once the tender has closed, the bids are reviewed by the City for clerical errors
and compared to estimates and budget. A rationale is provided for any gross
inconsistencies in unit prices.
18. The contractor is selected based on the methodology identified in the
solicitation. In the case of the projects examined, this was based on lowest
responsive bid.
19. The City does not have a policy and procedures to enable explicit evaluation of
the past performance of contractors on previous City contracts when
determining the award of a new contract.
The City advises that a
prequalification process is used in large complex projects, and that the City has
the right to request a firm‟s experience in successfully completing projects of
similar size and complexity. However, the City does not always use these
methods, and past performance does not enter explicitly into the bid evaluation.
As a result, contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder meeting the mandatory
requirements identified in the solicitation, including bonding and insurance
requirements.
Page viii
20. The City has developed a document for reporting supplier performance during
the course of a contract. However, if the contractor completes the contract
without default, they are eligible to bid in future City contracts; even if the
contract process was fraught with difficulties, delays, and extra costs caused by
poor performance. The only penalty considered is if Supply Branch barrs the
contractor from bidding on future City projects. A performance evaluation
method that is taken into account in the evaluation of future bid opportunities is
necessary to distinguish between contractors who perform well from those who
do not.
21. Past performance of contractors should be documented and a rating system
established to enable the City to take the contractor‟s past performance into
account when they are competing for new work. The City currently has a
Contractor Performance Appraisal Form to document performance; the form is
included in Appendix X-2 of the Project Manager Manual. This form, with some
modifications, would be a good basis for contractor performance evaluation, as
discussed in the previous point. We note that the Contractor Performance
Appraisal Form was found in the project files of only one project (Townline
Bridge) and not in other project files reviewed.
22. The contract administration functions are well documented and are followed by
the project managers.
23. Review of the change orders in the various projects examined demonstrated that
the City has a proper method of checks and balances to confirm the need for the
change order, review the amounts proposed by the contractor, and negotiate as
required a fair price for the change order amount.
24. In general terms, change orders in large new building projects can be expected
to have a value ranging between 2% and 3% of the contract value on very well
coordinated projects; however, average values can be as high as 5%. On projects
that are additions to other buildings the value of change orders is expected to be
higher. For heavy construction projects, such as roads, watermains, sewers, and
bridges, acceptable values of change orders range from 5% to 10% of the contract
value. The changes are expected to be the result of site conditions. The range of
generally accepted values were determined based on the experience of a senior
architect with more than 20 years of experience, and was used as a typical
experience. Construction Delay Claims, B. Bramble & M. Callahan, Construction
Law Library, 2005, p. 5-26 states that change orders can range from -5% to +10%.
The American Institute of Architects (AIA), The Architect’s Handbook of
Professional Practice, 1994 states that the changes could be as high as 7%. AIA
Best Practice document, Managing the Contingency Allowance, David Hart, 2007,
indicates a value of 5% is commonly used. Columbia University Facilities
(http://facilities.columbia.edu) provides a range of 5% to 10%. In addition, the
Page ix
acceptable range of change orders can be supported by the usual range of
contingency allowances that are provided in civil construction projects.
25. Review of the change orders for the various projects examined showed that
several were the result of design issues or design errors and omissions. Work
performed under a change order is generally more costly than if the same work
is performed under the original tender bid. The reason for the higher cost is that
the contractor will charge full price for labour, materials, and equipment
required to carry out the work, since there is no competitive process, plus the
contractor is entitled to mark up the cost by 15% in the case of work done by the
contractor or 10% for work done by a sub-contractor for overhead and profit.
The percentages of mark-up were determined based on the change orders
reviewed during this audit. In contrast, contractor‟s overhead and profit are
distributed throughout the project items in a bid.
26. In some instances, the cost of the entire change order was the result of
consultant‟s errors and omissions. The City paid the entire cost, without
requiring the consultant to cover the additional costs.
27. On two of the projects reviewed, the respective project manager classified the
change order into categories (e.g., design errors and omissions, coordination,
owner request, site conditions, and others). This procedure is important to assist
in recording the amounts that could be recovered from the consultants. Not all
project managers follow this procedure. This process should be followed by all
project managers.
28. Figure 5 summarizes the costs of change orders for the various projects, and the
portion of the cost that was due to design errors and omissions by consultants.
Details on individual change orders for each project are provided in Appendix
A of the full report.
29. The amount of the change orders suggests that there may be issues with this
matter. This will be explored further in our 2013 Audit of Infrastructure
Services.
Page x
Figure 5: Contract Amounts and Change Orders
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Project Name
Original
Contract
Amount
Change
Order
Amount
Percentage of
Change Orders in
Relation to
Original Contract
Amount
Gloucester Hornets
Nest Fieldhouse
Cavanagh Bridge
$298,253
$35,097
11.8%
$751,100
167,918
22.4%
$4,110,700
$1,065,830
25.9%
$493,300
$64,562
13.1%
$6,635,000
$346,501
5.2%
$50,562
$12,457,000
$1,196,238
9.6%
$696,881
$6,327,937
$246,716
3.9%
$6,878,000
$248,026
3.6%
$9,343,824
$424,159
4.5%
$3,470,297
$595,180
17.2%
$4,478,000
$379,595
8.5%
$198,075
$14,892,000
$2,064,769
13.9%
$660,470
$11,867,325
$762,817
6.4%
$30,204
$3,505,330
$367,888
10.5%
$70,980
$1,191,778
$57,560
4.8%
Woodroffe Avenue
Watermain ISD11-5046
John Leroux Arena
(Stittsville Arena)
Goulbourn Twin Ice
Pad
Southwest Transitway
Extension
Woodroffe Watermain
ISB09-6001
Sandridge Road
Reconstruction and
Hillsdale Road
Centrepointe Theatre
Expansion
West Nepean Collector
Sewer Rehabilitation
Campeau Drive
Pumping Station
Strandherd Drive
Extension ISB09-5009
3W Feedermain Phase
1, Part 1
Cave Creek Collector
Relocation
Prince of Wales
Roundabout
TOTAL ALL
PROJECTS
9.3%
$86,699,844
Portion of the
Change
Orders Paid
by the City
Relating to
Design Errors
$30,816
$63,292
$1,801,280
$8,022,856
Per the above table, the percentage of the change orders due to design errors
and omissions is 22% of the change order value.
30. The City does not have a consistent approach to encourage the project managers
to recover from the consultant the cost of change orders when these are caused
by errors and omissions in the design.
Page xi
Projects Raised by Councillors
The findings listed below pertain to the nine projects that were brought to the
attention of the Auditor General by Councillors. The projects were reviewed in
accordance with Audit Objective No. 3 and the associated criteria.
Transitway
The “Transitway Design Manual, October 1993” has provisions for the placement of
manholes on the Transitway, specifically stating that manholes and other ironwork
shall not be placed on the travelled portion of the Transitway. The Sewer Design
Guidelines, SDG001, November 2004 states that “attempts should be made to avoid
locating manholes in the path of vehicle tires, subject to the location requirements of
the Guidelines for the Placement of Utilities in the Right-of-Way", which takes
precedence. Review of the provisions show that they are adequate. Spot
examination of the Transitway disclosed that its design follows these provisions.
Gloucester Hornets Nest
1. The project was tendered using Supply Branch standard procedures. The bids
received ranged from $298,937 to $581,333. The lowest bidder was awarded the
contract.
2. Review of the cost of the building shows that the cost per square metre of
building was $2,310 ($215 per square foot). Based on average construction cost
per unit area of similar buildings, the unit cost for the building is competitive.
3. The cost of change orders due to design errors or omissions was $30,816.
Although the work was necessary, when work is done as a change order the cost
to the City is higher than if it is included in the original tender. In this particular
case, the additional costs calculated based on 15% overhead and profit markup
is $4,019 [$30,816*(1-1/1.15)].
Townline Bridge Replacement
1. The issue in this contract is whether the contractor had performed prior work
for the City and their performance was not taken into account in awarding them
this contract. The audit found that the contractor had completed a smaller
culvert replacement, in which they made a major mistake in setting the
elevations of the culvert footings. However, the resulting problems were
corrected by the contractor at their cost and at no cost to the City.
2. In the bid for the subject bridge contract, the contractor met all the bid
requirements, including provision of a bid deposit and agreement to bond, and
subsequently met all insurance and bonding requirements.
3. Upon completion of this contract, in July 2004, it could be concluded that the
contractor completed the work satisfactorily, but had schedule problems.
Page xii
4. The contract work was delayed so the City applied liquidated damages to the
contractor and deducted them from the payments.
5. In 2007, the contractor took legal action against the City on the basis of a claim
for extras that was rejected by the City. This action is ongoing.
Cavanagh Bridge
1. Contract ISB04-7018 was awarded in April 2005, after the completion of the
Townline Bridge Replacement, discussed in Section 4.3.3 of the full report. The
contractor work started on July 4, 2005; was substantially completed in January
6, 2006; and, was completed on June 27, 2006.
2. At the start of the contract, the City discussed with the contractor the problems
associated with various deficiencies, non-performance and supervisory issues
on previous contracts carried out by the contractor. The City and the contractor
agreed that their performance would be monitored during the execution of this
contract.
3. The City attempted to apply a formal contractor evaluation form for future use,
based on a form similar to the Contractor Performance Appraisal Form that is
presently included in the Project Manager Manual.
4. Supply Branch working with departments developed a document for recording
supplier non-performance, by progressive escalation of contract issues. The
document provides general instructions for enforcing the provisions of the
contracts, including notice of default and for termination of the contract.
However, it is a general document intended to be applied to all City
procurement, and is not sufficiently specific to construction.
5. The procedures do not include a method for recording past performance of
contractors on City projects. There is no specific method for applying the results
of past performance of a contractor to the selection process in future City
contracts.
6. The Contractor Performance Appraisal Form included in the Project Manager
Manual could form the basis for contractor evaluation. However, we noted that
it was not found in the files of the projects that were reviewed during the audit.
Dunrobin Road Culvert
1. The original culvert was a 1.8 m diameter corrugated steel pipe (CSP) culvert,
which had corroded substantially. In 2007, the City arranged to rehabilitate it by
installing another culvert through the barrel of the CSP culvert to extend its
useful life. The process of installing the culvert through an existing culvert is
called sliplining.
Page xiii
2. On August 15, 2010, the road was overtopped at the culvert and part of the road
embankment was washed out by the flood. On April 11, 2011, the road was
overtopped during another storm, which caused damage to the northbound lane
and shoulder, although not to the same extent as in the August 2010 flood.
Following the flood, the road was repaired under emergency work procedures
and reopened on April 16, 2011.
3. Following the flood, a hydraulic analysis of the culvert showed that the lining
done in 2010 had reduced the hydraulic capacity of the culvert. The consultant
recommended that the culvert be replaced with a larger one.
4. On June 24, 2011, the road was overtopped a third time in less than one year. On
this occasion, the City decided to keep the road closed and to replace the culvert
with a new one selected on the basis of the consultant hydraulic
recommendations and the pipe that was available from the manufacturer for
rapid delivery.
5. The June 2011 work was done on a time and material basis, using the contractor
that had been called in to repair the damaged road.
6. The issues with this project are that the initial renewal process, which concluded
in the sliplining rehabilitation in 2007, did not follow the formal procedures for
evaluation of renewal alternatives of bridges and bridge-culverts.
The
hydrology and hydraulic calculations were not sufficiently thorough to permit
the City to recognize that the hydraulic capacity had been reduced, or the
implications of this reduction.
King Edward Avenue Reconstruction
1. The project comprised reconstruction of King Edward Avenue and connecting
streets between York Street, Sussex Drive and Macdonald-Cartier Bridge. The
work comprised relining the existing collector sanitary and storm sewers;
reconstruction of underground utilities; removal of existing road bed,
excavation, granular and hot mix asphalt; rehabilitation of the Red Path
structures; demolition of one structure and three new landscape wall structures
with a stone facing.
2. As part of the process, the City required the contractor to conduct a preconstruction survey of buildings and structures that could potentially be
affected by construction activities and vibration.
3. The contractor retained a specialized firm to complete the pre-construction
survey. The limits of the pre-construction survey are determined by the
contractor, and not the City. This contracting procedure protects the City as the
responsibility for damages is the contractor‟s. The procedure is a standard
procedure used by practically all project owners, since the project owner (the
City in this case) does not have control over the contractor‟s methods and
operations.
Page xiv
4. The specialized firm carried out a pre-construction survey of 100 buildings; of
these, 44 were inspected both inside and outside. The remaining 56 were
surveyed only on the outside because the owner refused entry to the survey
company representatives.
5. The property owners of nine buildings claimed that their buildings had been
damaged as a result of construction. Of the nine buildings, four are located
outside of the pre-construction survey limits.
6. The property owners discussed the matter with the City‟s project manager, who
referred the matter to the contractor. The contractor referred the matter to his
insurance company.
7. The issue on this project arose from the fact that the City contract documents
transfer the responsibility for damages that occur during construction to the
contractor. A number of the property owners brought the matter to the
attention of the Mayor, who had the City Solicitor review the contract
documents. The City Solicitor advised the property owners that the matter
should be pursued with the contractor.
8. The property owners have taken issue with the fact that the City transfers to the
contractor the entire responsibility and risk for any damages caused by
construction. The reason the City and practically all other project owners in
North America pass this responsibility is that, as previously noted, the City does
not have control or responsibility for the methods and procedures used by the
contractor.
9. We reviewed contract documents issued by several other municipalities and the
Ministry of Transportation. In all cases, the Ontario General Conditions of
Contract, part of the Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications, which transfer
the responsibility for any damages caused by the contractor to the contractor,
were used. Public Works Canada in its contracts uses similar language.
10. The City‟s contract provisions meet the current standard for handling of damage
claims. As well, the manner in which the project manager addressed
construction damage claims was correct.
Woodroffe Avenue Watermain Replacement
1. In 2007, a watermain failure on Woodroffe Avenue south of Hunt Club Road
occurred. The City carried out a non-destructive pipeline condition assessment
of the watermain from Hunt Club Road southerly to Fallowfield Road in
November 2008. The condition assessment found that 18 of 558 pipes inspected
(3.2%) had broken prestressing wires. A failure risk analysis of the data
collected in the condition assessment was completed to calculate the risk of
failure of the prestressed concrete cylinder pipes and the repair priorities for the
maximum pressures. The failure risk analysis results, reported in February 2009,
indicated that of the 18 pipes with broken prestressing wires, 3 were in Repair
Page xv
Priority 1 (immediate action required) and 1 pipe in Repair Priority 2 (replace
within 3 years). The other 14 pipes were in Priority 3 and 4 (moderate and low
risk for the next 5 years).
2. The 1.2 m diameter watermain on Woodroffe Avenue failed on January 14, 2011
between Medhurst Drive and Hunt Club Road. This section of the watermain
was constructed in 1975 and 1976 using concrete prestressed pipe.
3. The section of watermain that failed in January 2011 is located north of Hunt
Club Road. It was constructed using the same type of pipe which had a similar
failure in the fall of 2007, but about 1 to 2 years earlier.
4. The February 2009 failure risk analysis report states that pipes in Repair
Priorities 1 and 2 are in high to moderately high risk of failure. The report
recommended that the four pipes in Repair Priorities 1 and 2 be excavated and
inspected externally to confirm the level of distress, and to replace the pipes
accordingly.
5. The 2009 failure risk analysis report defines Priority 1 projects as those where
the maximum pressure in the line exceeds the pressure that produces the
ultimate strength with (Priority 1a) and without (Priority 1b) the contribution of
soil resistance. The failure can occur at any time. Repair should be performed as
soon as practical and in less than 1 year.
6. Accordingly, pipes in Priority 1 should have been replaced, at the latest, before
February 2010.
7. The design for the replacement of the four pipes south of Hunt Club Road in
Priority 1 and 2 started in December 2009, with the original schedule of
construction start date of October 2010, which is 8 months later than the Priority
1 failure risk indicated. The original design schedule was to have the design
completed and the tender package ready before June 2010.
8. At a scheduling meeting on January 12, 2010, the City decided to postpone the
project, but that the design should be ready for construction in case that an
emergency required the work to proceed. This was communicated to the project
manager by a senior watermain rehabilitation engineer on May 19, 2010, who
indicated that the delay was due to other potentially conflicting demands on the
system, that the watermain and transient pressures would be monitored by
Operations, and that the design should proceed to completion in case that an
emergency repair became necessary. The City has indicated that the decision to
delay the repairs was made based on other risks to the water system that would
not have been apparent to the consultant doing the inspection at the time of the
condition assessment. Drinking Water Services carried out a transient analysis
(maximum water pressure analysis) in 2009 to assess the likelihood and
magnitude of transients that could affect the pipes. The City has explained that
the decision to postpone the repairs in Priority 1 was based on managing overall
Page xvi
water system risks, and that the contract for the repairs on Woodroffe Avenue
were scheduled to proceed after the completion of the 2W/2C watermain, which
would provide a third feed into the area.
9. At the time of the January 2011 watermain break, construction of the Zone 2W
2C feedermain was in progress, so the City‟s Design and Construction explored
the possibility of extending the contract to include the watermain north of Hunt
Club Road. However, Asset Management and Drinking Water Services
suggested that a condition assessment of the Woodroffe Avenue watermain be
done first to identify areas of concern. The scope of the January/February 2011
condition assessment was broader than the 2008 condition assessment, and
included the section from David Drive to Hunt Club Road, in addition to the
section done in 2008 (Hunt Club Road to Fallowfield Road).
10. On February 24, 2011, Asset Management provided Design and Construction West with a Scoping Document based on the findings of the condition
assessment. When comparing the 2008 and 2011 conditions assessments, it was
found that the number of pipe sections with wire breaks was similar on a per
km basis, but a greater number of pipes had more severe deterioration. They
did find substantial increase in deterioration in the prestressed concrete pipe
watermain from 2008.
11. The project manager was aware that procurement of the pipes could take a
substantial length of time and therefore proposed to sole-source the
procurement of the pipes from a manufacturer who could deliver the required
quantity of pipe within the required schedule, in order to expedite construction.
He requested pricing for the replacement pipes from the supplier and received it
on February 24, 2011.
12. On March 1, 2011, the project manager informed the pipe supplier that the City
would proceed with buying the pipe and appurtenances required from the
supplier selected. On March 10, 2011, the project manager sent an Estimated
Spending Plan Authority (E-SPA) to Purchasing for the pipe. The project
manager indicates in the email that Supply Branch had been kept apprised all
along, but review of the files found no documentation to confirm that this was
the case.
13. On March 16, Purchasing asked the project manager for the reason for sole
sourcing the pipe and for selecting the company. The discussion about sole
sourcing the pipe extended to March 30th, at which time the decision was to
proceed with a standard tender.
14. The correspondence shows that at the time of the break in January 2011, the City
repaired the broken watermain and it scheduled the required replacement of the
remaining pipes to tender the project for work in the fall of 2011. However, the
condition assessment of the watermain from David Drive to Fallowfield Road
disclosed that sections of the watermain had deteriorated substantially since
Page xvii
2008 and that there was similar deterioration in the segment north of Hunt Club
Road. Based on the results, the City decided to not return to service the section
of watermain from Knoxdale Road to Vaan Drive until the required watermain
replacement was completed. On this basis, the City decided to carry out the
watermain replacement and repair work as soon as possible, instead of
returning the watermain to service immediately and risking another break.
15. While the pipe was out of service, supply to the Barrhaven and Riverside South
service areas was being provided through a single 406 mm watermain along
Merivale Road, supplemented by in-line pumping. The temporary supply met
the demand at the time, but hydraulic modelling indicated that it would meet
only 75% of the maximum day demand.
16. At the end of February 2011, the results of the condition assessment and the
hydraulic modelling showed that construction could not be postponed until the
fall, and the project was scheduled for tendering as soon as possible.
17. A number of alternative means of operation and/or repair were examined,
including repairs by leaving the pipe in place, such as sliplining or reinforcing
the pipe. The analysis concluded that the preferred solution is open cut
construction along Woodroffe Avenue. Any of the alternatives would only
advance completion by, at most, two weeks and the resulting watermain
condition would not be as satisfactory.
18. As a result, it was necessary to impose a complete outdoor water ban in
Barrhaven, Riverside South and Manotick until completion of the project, in
order to avoid running the system dry and possible boil water advisories and
inability to meet firefighting requirements.
19. Review of the change orders for this project found that they were fully
documented and were reviewed by the contract administrator and project
manager. In general terms, the change orders were necessary to expedite the
project.
20. “Police assistance at intersections” item is a concern. Due to the level of traffic
congestion on Woodroffe Avenue, it was necessary to have point duty police on
a daily basis. The original tender did not anticipate this amount of point duty
for the project. The additional cost was $247,637, paid by variation in the tender
quantities at the tender price. The total price paid was $313,638. Review of the
invoices to the contractor for 1,140.5 hours of police service show that the cost
was $214,346 based on $188 per hour. The contractor was paid $99,292 or 46%
mark-up on police cost.
21. The project manager should have negotiated the cost of this item, as it clearly
was a very significant variation in the quantities, and the general conditions of
contract contain provisions for such eventuality. In addition, the manner in
which the item is paid provides the contractor with a profit on a service
Page xviii
provided by one City Service to another. In fact, the profit margin is 46% even if
the number of hours in the contract is not exceeded.
22. Rather than include an item with unit prices, the City should provide an
allowance for the cost of the services, with only an administration markup for
the contractor. A better option would be to have Ottawa Police invoice the City
directly for the services.
John Leroux (Stittsville) Arena Roof Replacement
1. The design for the arena upgrades comprised replacing the existing arena roof
with a new one. The total fees paid for the design were $6,827.
2. The design drawings showed that the roof had variable slope, ranging from 10º
near the apex to 17.4º near the fascia. The specifications required a specific
product and model of sheet metal roofing and cladding. During the tender, a
second manufacturer requested to be included as an approved alternate, and
was in an addendum.
3. After the contract was awarded, the contractor informed the City and the
consultant that the roofing manufacturer selected by the contractor (from the
approved suppliers provided in the tender documents) had advised that the
specified roof replacement could not be installed on the arena roof because of
the curvature of the roof.
4. The roofing manufacturer selected by the contractor suggested that an alternate
product manufactured by them would be suitable for the site. The City accepted
the alternative, which resulted in additional costs due to differences in colour
and additional liner. However, the alternate product also could not be installed
on the roof.
5. The City, the consultant and the contractor worked several weeks on resolving
the matter, including construction of „mock-ups‟ to determine if alternatives
would work. The contractor suggested that a roofing membrane would fit the
roof configuration. In June 2009, the City accepted that the consultant design
would not work and asked the contractor to proceed. However, the arena
scheduling conflicted with the contractor‟s work methods. In November 2009,
the City rescinded the purchase order.
6. The City considered taking legal action against the consultant, but did not.
7. In February 2010, the City offered the contractor to reinstate the purchase order,
and the project was completed in September 2010, using the roof membrane
design proposed by the contractor in June 2009.
8. The project was completed in September 2010, using the revised roof design.
The total additional cost was $39,314 due to the change of the roof and the
delays.
Page xix
9. Analysis of the project timeline shows the following issues:
The design consultant did not carry out sufficient due diligence to confirm
that the roofing system provided in the tender documents would actually
work.
The design consultant refused to accept that the roofing system proposed
would not work until the contractor and the roofing supplier showed that
it was not a feasible system for this project.
The City considered claiming against the consultant for the additional costs
due to the change in roofing system and the delays, but decided against it.
The City advised that it received services from the consultant on another
project to compensate for the consultant costs to the City on this project.
However, the extent of compensatory services is not fully documented.
Goulbourn Recreation Complex
1. The construction of the Twin Ice Pad at the Goulbourn Recreation Complex
commenced in January 2011. The Chief Building Official issued a Partial
Occupancy Permit on March 29, 2012; the Final Occupancy permit has not been
issued.
2. The original schedule for the project in 2010 was for the contract to be completed
in January 2012. The schedule provided by the contractor during the initial
stages of the project required completion by the end of November 2011. In
September 2011, it was obvious to the contractor that the project would not be
completed in accordance with the original schedule, and a revised schedule was
issued with a planned completion date of January 30, 2012.
3. The main reasons for the setback were the result of delays with the
manufacturing, delivery and erection of the structural steel for the project. The
manufacturer initially would not start the shop drawings until he received the
signed and sealed structural drawing issued for construction. The original
schedule was for 25 working days, but the work required 75 days. In addition,
the structural steel was delivered to the site before the shop inspection required
by the contract documents, and with defects in some of the pieces. The City had
the structural steel inspected on site and the defects were corrected by the
contractor.
4. The City imposed on the contractor liquidated damages of $117,000 for the
delays, by deducting the sums in three payments.
5. Inspection and testing was carried out by the architectural firm and the
structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering firms retained by the City,
which provided general review of construction. In addition, the City retained
an inspection company to inspect the structural steel and welding, and carried
out testing of concrete and compaction in accordance to standard practice.
Page xx
6. Review of the file showed that all deficiencies found in the building were
corrected before final payment.
7. The issues that were found on this project were mainly
The structural steel fabricator created an adversarial relationship from the
very beginning and did not follow the requirements of the contract.
The structural steel was delivered without the required shop inspection
and with defects in some pieces (these were corrected on site).
Selected Projects Reviewed
The findings below correspond to ten projects that were selected as a sample to
provide context of the overall process to the review of the above projects. These
projects were reviewed in accordance with Audit Objective No. 4 and the associated
criteria.
Southwest Transitway Extension (North), Stage 1
1. This project comprised the construction of the Southwest Transitway Extension
from Berrigan Drive to Oriska Way, Highbury Park Drive Underpass Structure,
and the Longfield Station. The contract value for the project based on the tender
was $12,457,000. The value of change orders was $1,196,238, for a total final
contract value of $13,653,238.
2. Several change orders in this project were the result of an error in the storm
sewer elevations shown on a record as-built drawing on file at the City. The
resulting additional cost was $440,831.
3. The issue in this project is the accuracy of the record drawings and whether the
design consultant should have checked the inverts of the storm sewer given that
the crossing was critical. It appears that the City has not investigated whether it
could recover any costs of this extra work from the respective consultants.
4. During construction of the Highbury Overpass it was found that the rock at the
design foundation elevation was not adequate. This finding necessitated
additional rock explorations and testing, and re-design of the footing. The total
cost of the change orders was $86,132, which could have been saved if the
geotechnical investigation had been completed thoroughly.
5. The City publishes Standard Tender Documents for Unit Price Contracts, which
include a typical section for the trench for sewer and services (Standard
Drawing No. S6). However, the design drawings showed a typical trench width
for two sewers instead of using the standard drawing. As a result, a change
order was issued for the additional rock excavation required. The total cost of
the additional rock excavation was $18,069.
Page xxi
6. In total, change orders for $696,881 were the result of design errors. Of this, it is
estimated that $559,174 can be classified as payments that the City made which
could have been avoided during design. There is no indication that the City
considered recovering the additional costs from the consultants (prime
consultant and geotechnical sub-consultant).
Woodroffe Avenue Watermain Replacement (2009 contract)
1. This project comprised the replacement of a watermain to accommodate the
construction of the Transitway on the west side of Woodroffe Avenue south of
Baseline Road. The contract value of the project was$6,327,937.
2. This project progressed without major problems. Thirteen change orders were
the result of site conditions or requirements of Drinking Water Services; the total
value of change orders was $246,716. The largest change order comprised
construction of a new valve chamber and installation of the valve as requested
by Drinking Water Services ($166,509). A credit of $50,000 was applied for early
abandonment of the old watermain.
Sandridge Road (Hillsdale Rd to Merriman Ave.)
1. This project comprised the reconstruction of Sandridge Road, including
replacement of the watermain and sewers between Hillsdale Road and
Merriman Avenue. The contract value of the project was $6,878,000.
2. This project progressed without major problems. During the project there was a
total of $248,026 in change orders that were the result of site conditions or
additional requirements of the Operations department. The Hydro Ottawa
change orders were reimbursed by the utility.
1. This project comprised construction of the expansion to Centrepointe Theatre.
The building addition comprised 2,630 square metres, including a rehearsal
studio, dressing rooms, lounge area, volunteer room, workshop, interior loading
dock and storage rooms, plus a loading ramp, and landscaping. The total
contract value was $9,343,824.
2. A total of 129 change orders were issued for a total value of $424,159, including
a credit of $80,995 to close out the cash allowances ($250,000) in the contract.
Some changes were required due to design coordination.
The largest
modifications were due to changes to the roof to match the existing building‟s
roof, hydro substation modifications, and specialty items that were required
after substantial completion.
3. The value of change orders in this project constituted about 4.5% of the total
project value. On that basis, it is concluded that the value of change orders for
this project was within the accepted range.
Page xxii
4. The value of change orders resulting from omissions on the tender documents
was $62,949. Although the value is considered to be within the industryaccepted margin of 3%, the fact that they were omissions and not coordination
changes should be taken into account.
5. It is noted that the project manager in this contract identified in the change
orders the reasons for each change order, and included a classification for them,
including design errors and omissions. This is important to identify as it may
assist in the potential recovery of costs.
6. The project was constructed without major problems and was completed within
budget and on time.
West Nepean Collector Sewer CIPP Rehabilitation
1. The rehabilitation of the West Nepean collector sewer was undertaken under the
Federal Stimulus Funding Program for infrastructure projects (Stimulus
Program). It was originally scheduled to be completed before the deadline of
March 2011, but with the extension of the deadline by the federal government,
the project was completed in June 2011.
2. The original contract value was $3,470,297. The project was expanded and the
completion date extended when the Federal government extended the Stimulus
Program deadline. The final contract value was $3,804,902.
3. A major sewer surcharge caused by the operation of the Real Time Control
System for the combined sewers resulted in additional $221,346 costs. The
concern with this event is that the sewage by-pass plans prepared by the
contractor were reviewed by the project manager and Operations.
The contract documents should have included a caution regarding
operation of the Real Time Control System and its potential effect on the
West Nepean Collector.
During the review of the by-pass plan submitted by the contractor,
Operations should have noted to the contractor that the tunnel could be
flooded during a rainfall event.
Although no changes to the by-pass plans may have avoided the back-up
of sewage into the subject section of West Nepean Collector, if the
contractor had been advised of the possibility of flooding they would have
had the opportunity to change procedures to avoid damages to the lining
and the by-pass setup that were caused by the flooding.
4. In one of the by-pass plans, the contractor assumed that the by-pass could use
lands owned by NCC. However, the City did not have an easement on those
lands and had to obtain a temporary easement from NCC. The time required to
obtain the NCC permission resulted in a delay claim by the contractor, plus they
used an alternate by-pass route. This situation could have been avoided if the
contract documents had the following requirements:
Page xxiii
The contractor shall use for by-pass only existing right-of-ways and
existing easements.
The by-pass methods are determined by the contractor, but the by-pass
routes are specified by the City.
Use of an alternative by-pass route by the contractor is subject to approval
by the City. If the alternative is not approved by the City, the contractor
shall use the specified routes.
Campeau Drive Water Pumping Station
1. The Campeau Drive Water Pumping Station forms part of the Zone 3 West (3W)
Feedermain system. The original contract value was $4,478,000, which was the
lowest bid. It is notable that the second and third lowest bids were within
$255,000 of the lowest bid, which indicates that the City obtained a reasonable
price for the work.
2. Approximately $165,700 of additional cost was the result of changes needed to
meet the Building Code requirements or other design issues. The final value of
the contract was $4,807,853.
3. Construction of the project proceeded without a major issue until the project
was ready to commission.
4. The City‟s Drinking Water Services found that the SCADA (supervisory control
and data acquisition) control system installed by the sub-contractor did not meet
the City‟s standards.
5. The sub-contractor built and installed the Area Control Panel (ACP) without
providing shop drawings or seeking input from Drinking Water Services for the
design. Minutes of Deficiencies Meeting No. 1 show that the Factory
Acceptance Testing for the ACP was not completed and that the ACP was not
CSA certified. Shop drawings were submitted for the components, but not the
entire ACP.
6. Resolution of the issues with the ACP took from April 2010 to February 2011
(ten months).
7. Given that the contractor was able to install the wrong Area Control Panel and
that the consultant recommended payment for the work, it can be concluded
that there was a gap in the inspection process. It is reasonable to expect that the
consultant should have realized that the ACP was being installed without
following the required steps, as stipulated in the contract documents.
Consequently, the consultant is partly responsible for the delays in completion
of the pumping station.
8. As a result, the project was delayed substantially, as it was completed almost
1½ years later than scheduled.
Page xxiv
Strandherd Dr. (Crestway to Prince of Wales) incl. widening of Prince of Wales
1. The extension of Strandherd Drive from Crestway to Prince of Wales was
started in August 2009 and completed in September 2011. The contract value
was $14,892,000. Change orders with a value of $2,064,769 were approved and
paid, for a final project value of $15,997,123.
2. Based on a review of the change orders, $700,175 were due to changes due to
items that were missed in the design of the project. Change orders for work for
Hydro Ottawa amounted to $244,654, of which $234,084 was reimbursed to the
City by the utility.
3. The City paid a $16,500 change order for installation of seismographs for
vibration monitoring of construction activities. This should not have been paid
by City.
4. The project was completed on time, within the overall budget. However, there
were a considerable number of changes due to omissions in the design.
3W Feedermain Link - Phase 1, Part 1 (Ottawa River Pkwy to Moodie Drive)
1. The 3W Feedermain Link is a major component of the water distribution system
for the City of Ottawa. The section included in this project was started on May
20, 2010, with a contract price of $11,867,325.
2. Change orders with a value of $762,817 were approved and paid, for a final
contract value of $11,739,514. The reason why the final cost is similar to the
initial contract value is that provisional items were estimated to cost $785,000
and only $13,815 of the provisional item budget was spent.
3. The major issue with this project is that a substantial proportion ($297,161) of the
changes required during construction was due to design issues. Most of the
problems that arose during construction related to unresolved conflicts with
existing services and utilities. The largest change order, with a value of
$216,000, related to the provisions that were necessary to connect the feedermain
to the remainder of the system; this was not a design error, but was the result of
a contingency plan requested by the City at the Carlington Heights Pumping
Station, which required piping and pump modifications to ensure uninterrupted
water supply in case of failure of the existing transmission main during the hot
tap. This is considered a design issue as the consultant should have made
provision for a contingency plan to come into effect for the connection of the
new watermain to the system.
4. In the next phase of this project, carried out in subsequent contract designed by
the same consultant, the consultant failed to provide for the extensive volumes
of groundwater; the cost of which exceeded $1.6 million. As a result, the City
has commenced legal action against the design consultant and the geotechnical
consultant.
Page xxv
1. This project comprised construction of the new Cave Creek Collector, Phase 1 on
Harmer Avenue and Faraday Road. The contract was awarded on August 18,
2010. The tender documents required that the work be substantially performed
by December 21, 2010, with completion by May 15, 2011.
2. The Certificate of Authorization from the Ministry of the Environment was not
received until September 14th. The work was further delayed due to work by
Bell which was scheduled to leave the site in September 2010 but did not until
November 2010.
3. The contract value at the project start was $3,505,330. Change orders for the
project amount to $367,888.
4. Approximately $332,000 of the additional costs was the result of the delay in
starting construction.
5. The City paid $61,930 for box culvert storm sewer. However, an item, for the
supply and installation of the same size culvert, was already in the contract. The
City has explained that this particular section could not be paid based on the
unit prices because the section of storm sewer replaced was a cast-in-place
concrete section; replacement required demolition of the existing concrete sewer,
placement of two sections of precast concrete box, installation of dowels to tie
into the existing concrete culvert, and construction of a new cast-in-place
section.
Prince of Wales Roundabout Reconstruction at Central Experimental Farm
1. This project comprised the reconstruction of an existing traffic circle to configure
the intersection based on a roundabout.
2. The Commence Work Order was issued by the City on May 18, 2011. The
contract required substantial completion by July 15, 2011 and completion of the
work by September 16, 2011. The contract value when work started was
$1,191,778.
3. The cost of change orders was $57,560, of which $36,135 was due to the need to
change the connection of catchbasin leads to the existing storm sewer owned by
Public Works Canada. The method of connection had been agreed between
Public Works and the City, but the agreement was not provided to the designer.
As a result, the method of connection shown on the drawings and used in the
field did not meet the requirements of Public Works and Government Services
Canada (PWGSC). The City instructed the contractor to remove the connections
done per the design and to redo them based on the instructions from PWGSC.
4. The issue created by making the wrong connection should have been prevented
through coordination between project managers from different departments
(Infrastructure Services and Planning & Growth Management).
Page xxvi
Areas of Potential Savings
The following areas of potential savings were identified in this audit:
Police assistance at intersections: The City should pay for police assistance at
intersections directly to Ottawa Police Service. If the average hourly cost of police
assistance is $188 and the unit price in tenders is $275 per hour, the City could save
more than $435,000 in contractor mark-up fees based on a total annual utilization of
5,000 hours of police assistance.
Recovery of costs from consultants when change orders are the result of errors
and omissions in the design: Based on the sample, the average value of change
orders was 9% of contract amounts, and the average value of change orders due to
design errors and omissions was 22% of the total change orders. The value of the
sample projects ($123,766,000) was about 30% of the total value of the projects
awarded by the City in 2011 ($412.4 million). Using the average change order
values, the change orders in all contracts could amount to $37.1 million. If 22% of
these change orders are the result of design errors and omissions, this represents
$8.2 million. Even recovering only the 15% contractors‟ overhead and profit
markup on the change orders, the savings to the City could be approximately $1.2
million.
Recommendations and Management Responses
Recommendation 1
To provide a wider circulation of tenders, that the City, in addition to posting
tenders with the Ottawa Construction Association, ensure that all tenders are
posted on “Link2Build” and retain documentation of this.
Management Response
Management agrees with this recommendation and it has been implemented.
Supply Branch now retains documentation on the procurement file confirming
that the requirement was also posted on “Link2Build”.
Recommendation 2
That the City formalize its relationship with the Ottawa Construction
Association and “Link2Build”, including ensuring that the City’s rights to review
and audit the processes are documented.
Management Response
Management agrees with this recommendation.
Supply Branch will formalize the City‟s relationship with the Ottawa
Construction Association (OCA) and “Link2Build” including ensuring that the
City has the right to review and audit the documented processes, by the end of
Q4 2013.
Page xxvii
Recommendation 3
That the City develop a policy to require project managers to formally document
design errors and omissions found during the construction supervision process.
The documentation should include the requirement for project managers to
classify change orders into categories, such as design errors and omissions,
design issues, site conditions, etc., to facilitate the recovery of costs from the
consultants.
Management Response
Management will develop a policy and/or procedures to document design errors
and omissions found during the construction supervision process by Q2 2014.
It should be noted that some categories, (i.e., site conditions) will not result in
cost recovery from consultants. (See Management Response to Recommendation
4 with regard to cost recovery).
Recommendation 4
That the City develop a policy and procedures to be followed to recover the costs
of construction changes and original engineering costs related to the specific
component from the consultants when the additional costs are caused by design
errors or omissions.
Management Response
Management will develop a policy and/or procedures to recover the costs of
construction changes and original engineering costs related to a specific contract
component when the additional costs are caused by design errors or omissions.
This work will be completed by Q2 2014.
Recommendation 5
That the City develop a system to record contractor performance in City contracts,
and that the City expand the construction bid evaluation process to include
formally the past performance of the bidder in the evaluation and award of
contracts, so that contracts are awarded on the basis of past performance,
experience, and staffing in addition to lowest cost.
Management Response
Currently, City of Ottawa construction bid solicitations include a provision
whereby a firm must have experience successfully completing projects of similar
size and complexity. Firms that are unable to demonstrate this experience are
deemed non-responsive and are not awarded the contract.
Page xxviii
A project has been initiated within Supply Branch to develop an electronic
system to record and act on a Contractor‟s past performance. This system will be
implemented by Q4 2014. ISD will be working with Supply Branch on how
contractors‟ past performance will be affecting future award of contracts.
Recommendation 6
That the City ensure that for culverts where a reduction in conveyance capacity is
being considered, the renewal process includes undertaking the required
hydrology and hydraulic design.
Management Response
Since February 2011, the Asset Management Branch has modified its practice to
include a hydraulic assessment for culvert renewal options that would result in a
reduction in the hydraulic conveyance capacity.
Recommendation 7
That the City undertake a program for inspecting its critical water transmission
mains where they are known or suspected to be exposed to corrosive
environment, and that it takes action based on the results of the inspection
findings.
Management Response
In June 2012, Environmental Services presented to Environment Committee a
report on a condition assessment program for drinking water transmission mains
(ACS2012-COS-ESD-0014). This report outlines a risk-based approach to the
inspection and management of water transmission mains.
Recommendation 8
That the City submit to Council as part of the Drinking Water Quality
Management System annual report a summary of inspections on critical water
transmission mains, including an action plan for correction of pipes identified to
be in very poor condition.
Management Response
A summary of inspections on critical water transmission mains, including an
action plan for correction of pipes identified to be in poor condition, will be
reflected in the 2013 Drinking Water Quality Management System (DWQMS)
Annual Report to be presented to Council in Q2 2014.
Page xxix
Recommendation 9
That the City modify the payment method for services from other City services so
that they do not provide an unwarranted profit to the contractor.
Management Response
Management will conduct a review of the requirements that will modify the
payment method for City services from other City services so that they do not
provide an unwarranted profit to the contractor. Unless specific restrictions are
identified, this will be implemented by Q2 2014.
Recommendation 10
That the City ensure that operational constraints such as the operation of the Real
Time Control System are fully described in the contract documents and that the
risk for monitoring weather forecasts is transferred to the contractor.
Management Response
Management will work with staff in the Environmental Services department to
ensure that operational constraints are fully described in contract documents and
that the risk for monitoring weather forecasts is transferred to the contractor.
This will be built into contract standard specifications by Q2 2014.
Recommendation 11
That the City specify, in sewer renewal projects, the location for sewer by-passes
and require the contractor to use by-pass locations on existing right-of-ways or
appropriate existing easements. Sewer by-pass plans proposed by the contractor
using other locations must be at the contractor’s risk and expense, including the
consequences of delays.
Management Response
In all future sewer renewal contracts, the City will specify the location for sewer
by-passes on existing right-of-ways and appropriate easements. Should the
contractor propose other locations, the contract will specify that this will be at the
contractor‟s risk and expense, including the consequences of delays. This will be
built into contract standard specifications by Q2 2014.
Recommendation 12
That the City modify the Scoping Document so that commitments made by all
departments are explicitly discussed in the document.
Page xxx
Management Response
Management will amend the scoping document to ensure that commitments
made by all departments are explicitly expressed. This work will be complete by
Q2 2014.
Recommendation 13
That the City instruct the project managers that the liquidated damages are
provided to assist in keeping the contractors on schedule, but are not effective
unless the project manager actually charges them to the contractor.
Management Response
In Q3 2013, management issued a directive to ensure that project managers
impose liquidated damages on contractors pursuant to the City‟s Standard
Tender Documents.
Conclusion
The City‟s Construction Supervision process is complete and comparable to the
process and procedures used by other municipalities and the Ministry of
Transportation in Ontario.
The audit found a substantial amount of cost increase caused by change orders
resulting from consultants‟ errors and omissions, which the City is not recovering
from the consultants. The City is currently recovering costs resulting from changes
required by Hydro Ottawa, and should be able to recover costs for changes
required by consultants‟ errors and omissions.
Acknowledgement
We wish to express our appreciation for the cooperation and assistance afforded the
audit team by management.
Page xxxi
Vérification de la surveillance de la construction
RÉSUMÉ
Introduction
La vérification de la surveillance de la construction a été inscrite dans le plan de
vérification de 2012 du Bureau du vérificateur général (BVG), approuvé par le
Conseil municipal le 14 décembre 2011.
Contexte
Les membres du Conseil ont porté neuf projets à l‟attention du vérificateur général
pour qu‟il en fasse l‟examen. Les projets à examiner ont en grande partie été réalisés
en 2010 et en 2011, sauf deux qui se sont déroulés en 2004 et en 2006. Les
échantillons de projets ont été sélectionnés parmi ceux qui ont été réalisés en 2011 et
en 2012.
Objectifs de la vérification
Objectif 1 - Examiner et évaluer les méthodes et les processus associés aux
procédures de surveillance de la construction utilisées par la Ville.
Critères
Examen des documents d‟appel d‟offres
Examen du processus d‟appel d‟offres, y compris les projets de
conception/construction
Procédures de sélection des entrepreneurs
Examen des documents contractuels
Dossiers administratifs en matière de construction
Affectation des gestionnaires de projet, des superviseurs de projet et des
inspecteurs
Procédures et tâches en matière d‟inspection de la construction
Procédures pour la gestion des demandes de modification et des commandes de
travaux supplémentaires
Procédures des processus de réclamation
Objectif 2 - Déterminer si les méthodes et les processus sont cohérents avec les
politiques, les procédures, les lois et les règlements pertinents et y sont conformes.
Critères
Procédures de gestion de projet
Procédures de transfert de projet de la conception à la construction
Rapport annuel 2012 du Bureau du vérificateur général
Page xxxiii
Processus d‟appel d‟offres
Processus d‟administration des contrats
Contrôle des coûts
Gestion des demandes de modification et des commandes de travaux
supplémentaires
Procédures d‟inspection
Gestion des réclamations des entrepreneurs
Objectif 3 - Examiner neuf projets précis et les problèmes particuliers portés à
l‟attention du vérificateur général par les membres du Conseil afin de déterminer
s‟ils sont conformes aux politiques, aux procédures, aux lois et aux règlements
pertinents.
Critères
Examen de projets précis et des problèmes indiqués par les conseillers
Choix du type de contrat
Procédures de contrôle et d‟assurance de la qualité
Gestion des réclamations
Objectif 4 - Examiner un échantillon de dix projets de construction réalisés en 2011
afin de déterminer s‟ils respectent les politiques, les procédures, les lois et les
règlements pertinents.
Critères
Examen d‟un échantillon de dix projets
Choix du type de contrat
Page xxxiv
Procédures de contrôle et d‟assurance de la qualité
Gestion des réclamations
Portée de la vérification
La portée de la vérification consistera à examiner le processus de surveillance de la
construction utilisé pendant la réalisation de projets d‟immobilisations de la Ville.
Les vérificateurs ont examiné les projets suivants, lesquels ont été portés à
l‟attention du vérificateur général par les conseillers. L‟examen a été axé sur les
préoccupations suivantes des conseillers.
Transitway – Installation de plaques d‟égout le long des voies de circulation et là
où passent les roues des autobus.
Hornets Nest, Gloucester – Examen du coût par rapport à la taille du projet;
examen du processus d‟approvisionnement.
Remplacement du pont Townline, structure 433080 – Un entrepreneur au
rendement médiocre a obtenu le contrat; projet antérieur non réalisé dans les
délais; augmentation du risque pour la Ville. Il convient de noter que ce projet a
été achevé en 2004.
Pont Cavanagh (chemin John Shaw), structure 433040 – Contrat octroyé au
même entrepreneur que pour la structure 433080; les problèmes sont les mêmes.
Il convient de noter que ce projet a été achevé en 2006.
Ponceau du chemin Dunrobin, structure 338180 – Le ponceau a été inondé,
réparé, inondé de nouveau, puis a été remplacé complètement en 2011.
Reconstruction de l‟avenue King Edward – Préoccupations relatives à des
fissures dans les sous-sols d‟un certain nombre de propriétés.
Remplacement de la conduite d‟eau principale de l‟avenue Woodroffe – Une
rupture de la conduite principale a eu lieu en janvier 2011, mais les travaux
n‟ont débuté qu‟en avril 2011. La préoccupation est de savoir si les travaux
auraient pu être réalisés en hiver ou au début du printemps. Les travaux
effectués en été ont dérangé les résidents, notamment les restrictions de
l‟approvisionnement en eau en raison du service d‟aqueduc temporaire.
Page xxxv
Modernisation de l‟aréna John-Leroux (Stittsville) – La réparation du toit a été
retardée jusqu‟à la fin de 2009 parce que les matériaux de couverture ne seraient
pas s‟adapter à la courbure du toit. Les travaux ont été finalement achevés en
2010. Il convient d‟évaluer l‟utilisation du modèle conception-construction par
rapport au modèle classique conception-soumission-construction.
Complexe récréatif Goulbourn – L‟ajout d‟une patinoire débuté en 2011 a été
achevé en 2012. On soulève des questions quant à l‟assurance et au contrôle de
la qualité et aux répercussions possibles sur la garantie du projet.
Pour établir le contexte de l‟ensemble du processus d‟examen des projets soulignés
par les conseillers, les dix projets suivants, achevés en 2011 et en 2012, ont été
examinés; ceux-ci représentent des travaux de construction d‟une valeur totale de
123 766 000 $ soit environ 11 % de la valeur totale du budget des projets réalisés
dans la ville en 2011. Les dix projets examinés comprennent des projets de petite, de
moyenne et de grande envergure. Les projets suivants ont été sélectionnés pour
constituer un échantillon représentatif à partir de ces critères.
Figure 1 : Sélection des projets passés en revue
Par Services d’infrastructure
Projets
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Prolongement de la partie sud-ouest du Transitway (nord), Phase 1 - de
Fallowfield à Berrigan
Remplacement de la conduite d‟eau principale de l‟avenue Woodroffe
(de Baseline à Navaho)
Chemin Sandridge (du ch. Hillsdale à l‟av. Merriman) - route, conduites
d‟eau et d‟égout
Agrandissement du Théâtre Centrepointe
Égout collecteur de Nepean-Ouest - remise en état par chemisage
Station de pompage de l‟eau de la promenade Campeau
Prom. Strandherd (de Crestway à Prince of Wales), y compris
l‟élargissement de Prince of Wales
Conduite principale reliant 3W - Phase 1, partie 1 (de la promenade de
l‟Outaouais à Moodie)
Égout collecteur de Cave Creek, Phase 1 (de Harmer à Faraday)
Reconstruction du carrefour giratoire sur Prince of Wales à la hauteur de
la Ferme expérimentale centrale
Coût total des projets passés en revue
Page xxxvi
Estimation du
Coût des projets
à l'achèvement
(milliers $)
17 568 $
4 827 $
8 000 $
11 850 $
3 800 $
3 500 $
35 000 $
32 000 $
6 000 $
1 221 $
123 766 $
Les demandes de modification ont été examinées dans les projets énumérés à la
figure 1 et cinq des projets soulevés par les conseillers, où des demandes de
modification étaient applicables. Au totale les demandes de modification de 15
projets ont été examinées.
Dans tous les projets, la vérification a permis de comparer les coûts aux
autorisations.
La vérification englobait les tâches suivantes.
Examen du cadre législatif.
Examen des politiques, des procédures, des normes et des pratiques de la Ville.
Examen des procédures, des normes et des pratiques de l‟industrie.
Examen des données de base.
Obtention et examen de tous les dossiers associés au projet.
Tenue d‟entrevues avec les personnes participant aux différents projets.
Tenue de visites des lieux au besoin.
Préparation du rapport préliminaire pour la vérification des faits.
Tenue d‟entrevues supplémentaires pour la confirmation des problèmes au
besoin.
Présentation du rapport préliminaire à la direction à des fins d‟examen.
Résumé des principales constatations
Constatations générale
Les constatations qui suivent sont liées aux objectifs de vérification no 1 (examiner et
évaluer les méthodes et les processus associés aux procédures de surveillance de la
construction utilisées par la Ville) et n° 2 (déterminer si les méthodes et les
processus sont cohérents avec les politiques, les procédures, les lois et les
règlements pertinents, et y sont conformes).
1. La Ville utilise, pour les services de construction, un processus
d‟approvisionnement qui prévoit la publication d‟appels d‟offres pour les
travaux. Le processus d‟approvisionnement est régi par la Direction de
l‟approvisionnement. Les appels d‟offres pour les projets de construction sont
envoyés à l‟Association de la construction d‟Ottawa (ACO), qui les publie et
gère la distribution des documents d‟appel d‟offres aux entrepreneurs
intéressés. Les invitations à soumissionner ne sont pas publiées sur d‟autres sites
Page xxxvii
de diffusion d‟appels d‟offres, sauf si le projet exige la participation
d‟entrepreneurs hautement spécialisés, auquel cas la Ville utilise MERX1.
2. Les projets publiés par l‟ACO peuvent être consultés sur place ou en ligne par
les membres de l‟ACO. Les non-membres peuvent acheter les documents
d‟appel d‟offres à un coût plus élevé que celui exigé des membres. La Ville a
affirmé que les appels d‟offres étaient publiés dans Link2Build, un nouveau site
utilisé à cette fin par l‟ACO depuis 2012. Link2Build est un site Web qui publie
les appels d‟offres (principalement pour des projets de construction non
résidentiels) des associations locales et régionales de construction du Canada.
Pendant la vérification, on a examiné le fonctionnement du processus
d‟invitation à soumissionner pour les non-membres – inscription et
téléchargement de documents pour un projet. Le processus était clair et
relativement simple.
3. Les renseignements fournis par l‟ACO révèlent que, pour environ 9 % de tous
les appels d‟offres des Services d‟infrastructure (110 sur 1271), des entrepreneurs
de l‟extérieur d‟Ottawa et des environs (au-delà de 50 km des limites de la ville)
ont demandé les documents de soumission. Parmi ceux-ci, cinq contrats ont été
attribués à des entrepreneurs de l‟extérieur d‟Ottawa et des environs, soit moins
de 1 % de la valeur totale des contrats de construction octroyés par la Ville
(363 200 000 $).
4. Ce qui soulève des préoccupations avec la méthode de publication des appels
d‟offres, c‟est que la Ville ne publie ses appels d‟offres que par l‟entremise de
l‟ACO (qui publie dans Link2Build, comme susmentionné), ce qui fait en sorte
que les appels d‟offres n‟obtiennent pas une grande diffusion à l‟extérieur
d‟Ottawa. Les appels d‟offres profiteraient d‟une plus grande diffusion s‟ils
étaient publiés dans des sites plus généraux, comme MERX. On peut s‟attendre
à ce qu‟une plus vaste diffusion des appels d‟offres de la Ville se traduise par le
dépôt d‟un plus grand nombre de soumissions. On peut également s‟attendre à
ce que cela entraîne une baisse des prix pour les contrats de la Ville. Il convient
de noter que la Ville utilise MERX pour d‟autres invitations à soumissionner, y
compris des demandes de propositions et d‟offres à commandes qui ne sont pas
en lien avec la construction.
1
MERX est un service électronique d‟appels d'offres bien établi et bien connu de portée
pancanadienne qui existe depuis 1997.
Page xxxviii
5. Dans son rapport annuel au Conseil, la Direction de l‟approvisionnement
analyse les pouvoirs délégués pour déterminer les contrats attribués à des
entreprises locales ou exécutés par ces dernières. Selon le rapport annuel, après
ajustements pour éliminer les produits ou les services qui ne sont pas
disponibles localement (p. ex. les autobus ne sont pas fabriqués à Ottawa, pas
plus que le sel de voirie), environ 94,5 % de chaque dollar d‟approvisionnement
annuel de la Ville a été dépensé à Ottawa et dans les environs.
Figure 2 : Analyse des approvisionnements locaux, par trimestre
Par Direction de l’approvisionnement
AVANT d‟éliminer les achats non disponibles
localement :
APRÈS avoir éliminé les approvisionnements
non disponibles localement :
T1 :
2011
T2 :
2011
T3 :
2011
T4 :
2011
69,6 %
85,7 %
78,9 %
80,7 %
91,4 %
92,9 %
97,6 %
93,7 %
Figure 3 : Ventilation géographique des fournisseurs pour les contrats de
2009 à 2011 octroyés en vertu de pouvoirs délégués
Par Direction de l'approvisionnement
2011
Région
2010
2009
Valeur en dollars
% du total
Valeur en dollars
% du total
Valeur en dollars
% du total
Ottawa et
environs
898 901 307 $
94,5 %
754 027 060 $
94,6 %
732 055 748 $
95,4 %
Ontario
22 897 121 $
2,4 %
18 187 233 $
2,3 %
24 918 710 $
3,2 %
Québec
10 522 412 $
1,1 %
13 028 587 $
1,6 %
5 796 562 $
0,8 %
Toutes les autres
18 607 380 $
2,0 %
12 077 843 $
1,5 %
4 805 783 $
0,6 %
Total
950 928 220 $
100,0 %
797 320 723 $
100,0 %
767 576 803 $
100,0 %
La Direction de l‟approvisionnement a effectué une analyse des « achats de
produits locaux » en 2011 portant uniquement sur les contrats de construction.
D‟après cette analyse, 808 contrats de construction sur un total de 884 attribués en
2011 (91,4 %) l‟ont été à des entreprises locales. Si l‟on considère la valeur en dollars,
ce pourcentage atteint 96,6 %.
Page xxxix
Figure 4 : Analyse des « achats de produits locaux » des contrats de
construction en 2011
Par Direction de l'approvisionnement
Nombre de
contrats de
construction
Valeur en dollars
% de la valeur en
dollars
Ottawa et environs
808
397 711 493 $
96,6 %
Ontario
50
11 995 007 $
2,9 %
Québec
21
1 845 407 $
0,4 %
Autres
5
226 940 $
0,1 %
884
411 778 847 $
100,0 %
Région
Total
6. Nous croyons qu‟il est possible de réaliser des économies en publiant les
invitations à soumissionner pour des projets de construction sur des sites
largement utilisés et susceptibles d‟atteindre un vaste public à l‟extérieur
d‟Ottawa.
7. Les procédures utilisées par la Ville pour affecter les gestionnaires et les
inspecteurs de projet sont semblables à celles utilisées dans d‟autres
municipalités ontariennes.
8. Les tâches concernant l‟administration et l‟inspection des contrats sont bien
documentées dans le manuel d‟inspection élaboré par les Services
d‟infrastructure.
9. Les projets examinés, à une exception près, ont été réalisés selon le modèle de
marchés publics conception-soumission-construction. Le remplacement d‟un
ponceau sur le chemin Dunrobin a été réalisé selon un modèle temps et
matériaux.
10. La Ville procède à une analyse des soumissions pour tous les appels d‟offres en
comparant le coût estimé établi avant l‟appel d‟offres aux différentes
soumissions. Cette procédure est similaire à celle utilisée en général par les
autres municipalités de l‟Ontario.
11. La Ville utilise les documents contractuels officiels pour tous les contrats de
construction examinés.
Page xl
12. La désignation des gestionnaires de projet est assurée par le gestionnaire de la
direction et le gestionnaire de programme, et ce, en fonction de l‟expérience du
gestionnaire de projet à l‟égard des travaux prévus au contrat. Les inspecteurs
sont choisis parmi un groupe d‟inspecteurs et sont appuyés par des consultants
au besoin, selon la charge de travail ou l‟expertise exigée.
13. Règlement no 50 de 2000, Règlement sur les achats - Règlement municipal en
matière d‟acquisition de biens, de services et de travaux de construction par la
Ville d‟Ottawa. Comme il est indiqué sur le site Internet de la Ville, le Règlement
sur les achats a pour but d‟obtenir le meilleur rapport qualité-prix dans
l‟acquisition de biens, de services et de travaux de construction par la Ville tout
en assurant un traitement équitable de tous les fournisseurs. Le principe
directeur du processus d‟approvisionnement veut que les acquisitions soient
effectuées par voie concurrentielle ouverte, transparente et équitable à l‟égard
de tous les fournisseurs. La présente vérification porte sur l‟application du
Règlement au processus d‟achat de services de construction.
14. Le manuel du gestionnaire de projet contient des orientations et des directives
précises sur les exigences concernant les appels d‟offres pour les projets. La
Direction de l‟approvisionnement assure une coordination avec l‟Association de
la construction d‟Ottawa pour publier les demandes de soumission, et le
gestionnaire de projet est mis à contribution au cours de la période de
soumission.
15. Le manuel du gestionnaire de projet précise les mesures à prendre lorsque
l‟administration et l‟inspection de travaux de construction sont réalisées par un
consultant.
16. Le manuel du gestionnaire de projet contient également des directives au sujet
de questions pouvant être soulevées pendant les processus d‟appel d‟offres et
pour les addenda.
17. À la clôture de l‟appel d‟offres, la Ville passe en revue les offres afin de relever
les erreurs d‟écriture, puis les compare aux estimations et au budget. On tente
de trouver une explication logique aux écarts importants dans les prix unitaires.
18. Le choix de l‟entrepreneur est effectué en fonction de la méthode de sélection
indiquée dans la demande; dans le cas de projets examinés, la méthode de
sélection reposait sur l‟offre recevable du soumissionnaire moins-disant.
Page xli
19. La Ville ne dispose pas de politique et de procédures permettant l‟évaluation
explicite du rendement antérieur des entrepreneurs sur des contrats municipaux
précédents lorsque vient le temps de décider de l‟attribution d‟un nouveau
contrat. La Ville affirme qu‟un processus de préqualification est mis en œuvre
pour les grands projets complexes et qu‟elle a le droit de demander qu‟un
entrepreneur démontre qu‟il a réalisé avec succès des projets d‟une envergure et
d‟une complexité similaires. Cependant, la Ville n‟a pas toujours recours à ces
méthodes et ne tient pas explicitement compte du rendement antérieur dans
l‟évaluation des soumissions. En conséquence, les contrats sont attribués au
soumissionnaire moins-disant si celui-ci répond aux exigences obligatoires
indiquées dans l‟appel d‟offres, y compris les exigences en matière de
cautionnement et d‟assurance.
20. La Ville a élaboré un document pour préparer les rapports sur le rendement des
fournisseurs au cours d‟un contrat. Toutefois, si l‟entrepreneur termine le
contrat sans manquement, il devient admissible pour soumissionner sur des
contrats futurs de la Ville; même si le processus contractuel est marqué par des
difficultés, des retards et des coûts supplémentaires attribuables au rendement
médiocre de l‟entrepreneur. La seule sanction considérée est la radiation du
fournisseur, par la Direction de l‟approvisionnement, de la liste des
soumissionnaires pour les projets de la Ville. Il faut disposer d‟une méthode
d‟évaluation du rendement qui sera utilisée dans l‟évaluation des possibilités de
soumission futures afin de distinguer les entrepreneurs qui ont un bon
rendement de ceux dont le rendement est médiocre.
21. Il faut documenter le rendement antérieur des entrepreneurs et mettre en place
un système de notation pour que la Ville puisse tenir compte du rendement
antérieur de l‟entrepreneur lorsque celui-ci est en compétition pour un nouveau
projet. La Ville dispose actuellement d‟un formulaire d‟évaluation du
rendement des entrepreneurs; ce formulaire est inclus à l‟annexe X-2 du manuel
du gestionnaire de projet. Ce formulaire, après quelques modifications,
constituerait un excellent point de départ pour l‟évaluation du rendement des
entrepreneurs, tel que mentionné au point précédent. Nous notons que le
formulaire d‟évaluation du rendement des entrepreneurs n‟a été trouvé que
dans les dossiers d‟un seul projet (pont Townline) et qu‟il était absent des
dossiers des autres projets examinés.
22. Les fonctions d‟administration des contrats sont bien documentées et sont
suivies par les gestionnaires de projet.
23. L‟examen des demandes de modification dans les divers projets examinés a
démontré que la Ville a une bonne méthode de freins et de contrepoids pour
confirmer la nécessité d‟une telle demande, examiner les montants proposés par
l‟entrepreneur et négocier au besoin un juste prix pour le montant
correspondant à la demande.
Page xlii
24. De façon générale, la valeur des demandes de modification pour les nouveaux
projets de construction devrait osciller entre 2 et 3 % de la valeur du contrat
pour les projets très bien coordonnés; toutefois, les valeurs moyennes peuvent
atteindre 5 %. Dans le cas des projets qui constituent des agrandissements de
bâtiments, la valeur des demandes de modification devrait être plus élevée.
Dans le cas des grands travaux de génie civil, tels que les routes, les conduites
d‟eau principales, les égouts et les ponts, les valeurs acceptables des demandes
de modification sont comprises entre 5 et 10 % de la valeur du contrat. Les
demandes de modification sont habituellement requises en raison des
conditions rencontrées sur le chantier. La plage des valeurs généralement
acceptées a été établie par un architecte principal cumulant plus de 20 ans
d‟expérience et utilisée à titre d‟expérience type. Construction Delay Claims,
B. Bramble et M. Callahan, Construction Law Library, 2005, p. 5-26, précisent
que les demandes de modification peuvent varier de -5 à 10 %. The Architect‟s
Handbook of Professional Practice, 1994, de l‟American Institute of
Architects (AIA) stipule que la valeur des demandes de modification pourrait
atteindre 7 %. Le document des pratiques exemplaires de l‟AIA, Managing the
Contingency Allowance, David Hart, 2007, mentionne qu‟une valeur de 5 % est
couramment utilisée. Columbia University Facilities (http://facilities.
columbia.edu) parle d‟une plage de 5 à 10 %. En outre, la plage acceptable pour
les demandes de modification peut être corroborée par la plage habituelle des
fonds pour éventualités qui sont prévus dans les projets de génie civil.
25. L‟examen des demandes de modification présentées pour les divers projets
examinés a révélé que plusieurs de ces demandes découlaient de problèmes ou
d‟erreurs de conception ou, encore, d‟omissions. Les travaux effectués
conformément à une demande de modification coûtent généralement plus cher
que les mêmes travaux effectués conformément à une soumission originale.
Cette hausse des coûts s‟explique par le fait que l‟entrepreneur facturera le plein
prix pour le travail, les matériaux et les équipements qui seront requis puisqu‟il
n‟y a aucun concours et que l‟entrepreneur peut prendre une marge de 15 % sur
les coûts dans le cas des travaux qu‟il effectue lui-même ou de 10 % pour les
travaux effectués par un sous-traitant pour les frais généraux et le profit. Les
pourcentages de majoration ont été déterminés à partir des demandes de
modification examinées dans le cadre de la présente vérification. En revanche,
dans une soumission, les frais généraux et le profit de l‟entrepreneur sont
répartis dans l‟ensemble des éléments du projet.
26. Dans certains cas, le coût total de la demande de modification était le résultat
d‟erreurs et d‟omissions de la part du consultant. La Ville a payé la totalité de
ces coûts, sans exiger du consultant qu‟il assume les coûts supplémentaires.
Page xliii
27. Dans deux des projets examinés, le gestionnaire de projet a comptabilisé les
demandes de modification par catégories (p. ex. erreurs et omissions au moment
de la conception, coordination, demande du propriétaire, conditions du site et
autres). Une telle façon de procéder facilite les choses lorsque vient le temps
d‟établir les montants pouvant être recouvrés auprès des consultants. Il convient
de noter que ce ne sont pas tous les gestionnaires de projet qui procèdent ainsi.
Ce processus devrait être appliqué par tous les gestionnaires de projet.
28. La figure 5 résume les coûts des demandes de modification des différents
projets et la portion des coûts attribuable à des erreurs et à des omissions au
moment de la conception de la part des consultants.
Des détails
supplémentaires sur chaque demandes de modification pour chaque projet sont
présentés à l'annexe A du rapport intégral.
29. La valeur des demandes de modification semble indiquer qu‟il pourrait y avoir
des problèmes. Cette question sera étudiée plus en profondeur dans notre
vérification des Services d‟infrastructure de 2013.
Figure 5 : Montants prévus aux contrats et demandes de modification
Nom du projet
1 Pavillon du parc Hornets Nest,
Gloucester
2 Pont Cavanagh
3 Remplacement de la conduite
d‟eau principale de l‟avenue
Woodroffe - ISD11-5046
4 Aréna communautaire JohnLeroux (Stittsville)
5 Complexe récréatif Goulbourn
(deux patinoires)
6 Prolongement de la partie sudouest du Transitway
7 Conduite d‟eau principale de
l‟avenue Woodroffe - ISB09-6001
8 Reconstruction du chemin
Sandridge et chemin Hillsdale
9 Agrandissement du Théâtre
Centrepointe
10 Remise en état de l‟égout
collecteur de Nepean-Ouest
Page xliv
Montant
initialement
prévu au
contrat
298 253 $
Montant des
Pourcentage
demandes de des demandes
modification de modification
par rapport au
montant
initialement
prévu au
contrat
35 097 $
11,8 %
Partie de la
demande de
modification
payée par la
Ville en raison
d‟erreurs de
conception
30 816 $
751 100 $
167 918 $
22,4 %
4 110 700 $
1 065 830 $
25,9 %
493 300 $
64 562 $
13,1 %
6 635 000 $
346 501 $
5,2 %
50 562 $
12 457 000 $
1 196 238 $
9,6 %
696 881 $
6 327 937 $
246 716 $
3,9 %
6 878 000 $
248 026 $
3,6 %
9 343 824 $
424 159 $
4,5 %
3 470 297 $
595 180 $
17,2 %
63 292 $
Nom du projet
11 Station de pompage de la
promenade Campeau
12 Prolongement de la promenade
Strandherd - ISB09-5009
13 Conduite principale reliant 3W,
Phase 1, partie 1
14 Relocalisation de l‟égout
collecteur de Cave Creek
15 Carrefour giratoire de la prom.
Prince of Wales
TOTAL DE TOUS LES PROJETS
Montant
initialement
prévu au
contrat
4 478 000 $
Montant des
Pourcentage
demandes de des demandes
modification de modification
par rapport au
montant
initialement
prévu au
contrat
379 595 $
8,5 %
Partie de la
demande de
modification
payée par la
Ville en raison
d‟erreurs de
conception
198 075 $
14 892 000 $
2 064 769 $
13,9 %
660 470 $
11 867 325 $
762 817 $
6,4 %
30 204 $
3 505 330 $
367 888 $
10,5 %
70 980 $
1 191 778 $
57 560 $
4,8 %
86 699 844 $
8 022 856 $
9.3 %
1 801 280 $
Le pourcentage des demandes de modification ci-dessus associé à des erreurs et
à des omissions correspond à 22 % de la valeur des demandes de modification.
30. La Ville n‟applique pas une approche cohérente pour inciter les gestionnaires de
projet à recouvrer auprès des consultants le coût des demandes de modification
qui découlent d‟erreurs et d‟omissions au moment de la conception.
Projets dégagés par les conseillers
Les constatations qui suivent concernent les neuf projets qui ont été portés à
l‟attention du vérificateur général par les conseillers. Les projets ont été examinés
conformément l‟objectif de vérification no 3 et aux critères connexes.
Transitway
Le manuel de conception du Transitway (Transitway Design Manual), octobre 1993,
contient des dispositions concernant l‟emplacement des trous d‟homme sur le
Transitway et précise que les trous d‟homme et autres dispositifs en métal ne
doivent pas se trouver dans la partie carrossable du Transitway. Les lignes
directrices en matière de conception des égouts (SDG 001) de novembre 2004
précisent qu‟il « faut tenter d‟éviter de placer les plaques d‟égout là où passent les
pneus des véhicules, sous réserve des exigences en matière d‟emplacement des
lignes directrices relatives à l‟emplacement des appareils de service public dans
l‟emprise », qui ont préséance. L‟examen des dispositions révèle que l‟emplacement
est adéquat. L‟examen ponctuel du Transitway a révélé que la conception de ce
dernier respectait ces dispositions.
Page xlv
Pavillon du parc Hornets Nest, Gloucester
1. Le projet a fait l‟objet d‟un appel d‟offres conforme aux procédures standard de
la Direction de l‟approvisionnement. Les soumissions reçues variaient de
298 937 $ à 581 333 $. Le plus bas soumissionnaire a obtenu le contrat.
2. L‟examen du coût de la construction démontre que le coût par mètre carré du
bâtiment était de 2 310 $ (215 $/pi2). Selon la moyenne des coûts de construction
par unité de surface de bâtiments semblables, le coût unitaire du bâtiment est
compétitif.
3. Les demandes de modification associées à des erreurs ou à des omissions ont
totalisé 30 816 $. Même si les travaux étaient nécessaires, le coût pour la Ville est
plus élevé lorsque ceux-ci sont effectués en vertu d‟une demande de
modification que lorsqu‟ils sont inclus dans l‟offre initiale. Dans ce cas
particulier, les coûts additionnels, calculés en fonction d‟une majoration de 15 %
pour frais généraux et marge de profit, s‟établissent à 4 019 $ [30 816 $*(11/1,15)].
Remplacement du pont Townline
1. Le problème avec le présent contrat est de savoir si l‟entrepreneur retenu a déjà
exécuté des travaux pour la Ville et que son rendement n‟a pas été pris en
considération au moment de l‟attribution du contrat. Les vérificateurs ont
constaté que l‟entrepreneur avait effectivement exécuté un contrat de
remplacement de ponceau de moindre envergure pour la Ville et qu‟il avait
commis une grave erreur en établissant les élévations des assises du ponceau;
cependant, les problèmes avaient été corrigés par l‟entrepreneur à ses frais et
sans frais pour la Ville.
2. Dans la soumission pour le pont en question, l‟entrepreneur remplissait toutes
les conditions indiquées, y compris le dépôt de soumission et une promesse de
caution, et a par la suite respecté toutes les exigences en matière de
cautionnement et d‟assurance.
3. Au moment de l‟achèvement du contrat, en juillet 2004, on a pu conclure que
l‟entrepreneur avait exécuté le travail de façon satisfaisante, mais qu‟il n‟avait
pas respecté les échéanciers.
4. Les travaux ont été achevés en retard et la Ville a imposé des dommages-intérêts
à l‟entrepreneur, qu‟il a déduits des paiements versés.
5. L‟entrepreneur a poursuivi la Ville en 2007 relativement à une réclamation de
coûts supplémentaires qui a été rejetée par la Ville. La cause est présentement
devant les tribunaux.
Page xlvi
Pont Cavanagh
1. Le contrat ISB04-7018 a été attribué en avril 2005 à la suite du remplacement du
pont Townline (voir section 4.3.3). L‟entrepreneur a commencé les travaux le
4 juillet 2005, les avait en grande partie terminés le 6 janvier 2006 et les a achevés
le 27 juin 2006.
2. Au début du contrat, la Ville a discuté avec l‟entrepreneur de problèmes liés à
diverses lacunes, à un manque de rendement et à la supervision de contrats
antérieurs effectués par l‟entrepreneur. La Ville et l‟entrepreneur ont convenu
que le rendement de l‟entrepreneur ferait l‟objet d‟un suivi pendant l‟exécution
du présent contrat.
3. La Ville a essayé de créer un formulaire d‟évaluation officielle des entrepreneurs
aux fins d‟utilisation ultérieure en se fondant sur un formulaire semblable au
formulaire d‟évaluation du rendement des entrepreneurs qui est inclus dans le
manuel du gestionnaire de projet.
4. La Direction de l‟approvisionnement, de concert avec les services, a élaboré un
document pour documenter les lacunes dans le rendement des fournisseurs, en
soumettant les problèmes constatés aux échelons supérieurs. Le document
contient des directives générales pour l‟application des dispositions des contrats,
y compris les avis de défaut et de résiliation de contrat. Toutefois, il s‟agit d‟un
document général destiné à l‟ensemble des processus d‟approvisionnement de
la Ville et qui n‟est pas suffisamment spécifique à la construction.
5. Les procédures ne comprennent pas de méthode d‟enregistrement du
rendement antérieur des entrepreneurs pour les projets de la Ville, et il n‟existe
pas de méthode précise pour appliquer les évaluations du rendement des
entrepreneurs pour un contrat donné aux processus de sélection ultérieurs pour
les contrats de la Ville.
6. Le formulaire d‟évaluation du rendement des entrepreneurs inclus dans le
manuel du gestionnaire de projet pourrait servir de fondement pour l‟évaluation
des entrepreneurs. Cependant, nous avons remarqué qu‟il ne se trouvait pas
dans les dossiers des projets examinés lors de la vérification.
Ponceau du chemin Dunrobin
1. Le ponceau original comportait un tuyau en acier ondulé de 1,8 m de diamètre
qui était passablement corrodé. En 2007, la Ville a pris des mesures pour le
réparer en insérant un autre tuyau dans le tuyau en acier ondulé original afin de
prolonger la durée de vie du ponceau. Ce processus d‟installation d‟un tuyau
dans un autre tuyau s‟appelle tubage.
Page xlvii
2. Le 15 août 2010, l‟eau est passée au-dessus de la route vis-à-vis du ponceau et
une partie du remblai routier a été emporté par l‟inondation. Le 11 avril 2011,
l‟eau est également passée par-dessus la route au cours d‟un orage, ce qui a
causé des dommages à la chaussée et à l‟accotement en direction nord, bien que
dans une proportion moindre qu‟à l‟occasion de l‟inondation d‟août 2010. Après
l‟inondation, des réparations d‟urgence ont été effectuées sur la route, qui a été
rouverte le 16 avril 2011.
3. Après l‟inondation, une analyse hydraulique du ponceau a démontré que la
doublure installée en 2010 avait réduit la capacité hydraulique du ponceau. Le
consultant a recommandé que le ponceau soit remplacé par un plus grand.
4. Le 24 juin 2011, la route était inondée une troisième fois en moins d‟un an. À
cette occasion, la Ville a décidé de garder la route fermée et de remplacer le
ponceau par un nouveau ponceau selon les recommandations hydrauliques du
consultant et le tuyau que le fabricant pouvait livrer rapidement.
5. Les travaux de juin 2011 ont été effectués dans le cadre d‟un contrat temps et
matériaux par l‟entrepreneur qui avait été appelé à réparer la route
endommagée.
6. Les problèmes liés à ce projet sont que la réparation initiale (tubage effectué en
2007) n‟avait pas été réalisée conformément aux procédures officielles qui
doivent être respectées pour l‟évaluation des options de renouvellement des
ponts et des ponceaux. Les études d‟hydrologie et les calculs hydrauliques
n‟étaient pas suffisamment approfondis pour permettre à la Ville de constater
que la capacité hydraulique avait été réduite ou d‟entrevoir les conséquences
d‟une réduction de la capacité hydraulique.
Reconstruction de l’avenue King Edward
1. Le projet comprenait la reconstruction de l‟avenue King Edward et les rues s‟y
rattachant entre la rue York, la promenade Sussex et le pont Macdonald-Cartier.
Les travaux comprenaient : le rechemisage du collecteur d‟égouts sanitaires et
pluviaux; la reconstruction des installations de service public souterraines;
l‟enlèvement de la chaussée, des travaux d‟excavation, la mise en place de
matériaux granulaires et l‟asphaltage de la chaussée; la réparation de la
structure Red Path; la démolition d‟une structure et l‟érection de trois structures
murales paysagères à revêtement en pierre.
2. Dans le cadre du processus, la Ville a exigé que l‟entrepreneur mène une étude
des bâtiments et des structures qui pourraient être affectés par les vibrations et
les activités de construction avant la construction.
Page xlviii
3. L‟entrepreneur a engagé une firme spécialisée pour effectuer l‟étude préalable à
la construction. La portée de l‟étude préalable à la construction a été déterminée
par l‟entrepreneur et non par la Ville. Cette façon de procéder protège la Ville,
car la responsabilité relative aux dommages incombe à l‟entrepreneur. Il s‟agit
d‟une procédure standard utilisée par pratiquement tous les maîtres d‟ouvrage
(la Ville en l‟occurrence), ce dernier n‟ayant pas de contrôle sur les méthodes et
les activités de l‟entrepreneur.
4. L‟étude préalable à la construction de la firme spécialisée a porté sur
100 bâtiments; parmi ceux-ci, 44 ont fait l‟objet d‟une inspection à l‟intérieur et à
l‟extérieur. Les 56 autres bâtiments n‟ont été inspectés qu‟à l‟extérieur, les
propriétaires refusant l‟entrée aux représentants de la firme.
5. Les propriétaires de neuf bâtiments ont fait valoir que leurs immeubles avaient
été endommagés par les travaux de construction. Des neuf bâtiments, quatre
sont situés en dehors des limites de l‟étude préalable à la construction.
6. Les propriétaires ont discuté de la question avec le gestionnaire de projet de la
Ville, qui a transféré le dossier à l‟entrepreneur. L‟entrepreneur a pour sa part
transféré le dossier à sa compagnie d‟assurance.
7. Les problèmes associés à ce projet découlent du fait que les documents
contractuels de la Ville transfèrent à l‟entrepreneur la responsabilité des
dommages qui surviennent au cours de la construction. Un certain nombre de
propriétaires ont porté la question à l‟attention du maire, qui a demandé au chef
du contentieux d‟examiner les documents contractuels. Le chef du contentieux a
avisé les propriétaires fonciers que le dossier devrait être réglé avec
l‟entrepreneur.
8. Les propriétaires ne sont pas d‟accord avec le fait que la Ville transfère à
l‟entrepreneur l‟entière responsabilité et les risques de dommages causés par les
activités de construction. La raison pour laquelle la Ville et pratiquement tous
les autres maîtres d‟ouvrage en Amérique du Nord transfèrent cette
responsabilité est que la Ville n‟a pas de contrôle ni de responsabilité à l‟égard
des méthodes et des procédures utilisées par l‟entrepreneur.
9. Nous avons examiné les documents contractuels de plusieurs autres
municipalités et du ministère des Transports. Dans tous les cas, ceux-ci utilisent
les conditions générales des contrats de l‟Ontario (spécifications standardisées
de l‟Ontario) qui transfèrent la responsabilité des dommages causés par
l‟entrepreneur à l‟entrepreneur. Travaux publics Canada utilise un libellé
similaire dans ses contrats.
10. Les dispositions du contrat de la Ville respectent les normes actuelles en matière
de traitement des réclamations pour dommages. Le gestionnaire de projet a
donc traité les réclamations pour dommages dus aux travaux de construction de
façon appropriée.
Page xlix
Remplacement de la conduite d’eau principale de l’avenue Woodroffe
1. En 2007, la conduite d‟eau principale de l‟avenue Woodroffe s‟est rompue au
sud du chemin Hunt Club. En novembre 2008, la Ville a effectué une évaluation
non destructive de l‟état de la conduite d‟eau principale à partir du chemin
Hunt Club jusqu‟au chemin Fallowfield, au sud. L‟évaluation a révélé que 18
des 558 tuyaux inspectés (3,2 %) présentaient des fils de précontrainte rompus.
On a effectué une analyse du risque de défaillance avec les données recueillies
au cours de l‟évaluation pour calculer le risque de défaillance des tuyaux
cylindriques en béton précontraint et établir les priorités de réparation pour les
pressions maximales. Les résultats de l‟analyse du risque de défaillance,
divulgués en février 2009, ont indiqué que des 18 tuyaux présentant des fils de
précontrainte rompus, trois affichaient une priorité de réparation de niveau 1
(remplacement immédiat requis) et un, une priorité de réparation de niveau 2
(remplacement dans trois ans). Les 14 autres tuyaux affichaient une priorité de
réparation de niveaux 3 et 4 (risque modéré et faible pour les cinq prochaines
années).
2. La conduite d‟eau de 1,2 m de diamètre de l‟avenue Woodroffe s‟est rompue le
14 janvier 2011 entre la promenade Medhurst et le chemin Hunt Club. Cette
section de la conduite d‟eau principale faite de tuyaux en béton précontraint a
été installée en 1975 et en 1976.
3. La section de la conduite d‟eau principale qui s‟est rompue en janvier 2011 se
trouve au nord du chemin Hunt Club. Elle a été construite avec le même type de
tuyau que la section qui a connu un bris similaire à l‟automne 2007, mais
environ 1 à 2 ans plus tôt.
4. Le rapport d‟analyse du risque de défaillance de février 2009 indique que les
tuyaux affichant une priorité de réparation de niveau 1 et 2 présentent un risque
de défaillance d‟élevé à modérément élevé. Le rapport recommande que les
quatre tuyaux affichant une priorité de réparation de niveau 1 et 2 soient
excavés et inspectés à l‟extérieur afin que l‟on puisse confirmer le niveau de
faiblesse et remplacer les tuyaux en conséquence.
5. Le rapport de l‟analyse du risque de défaillance de 2009 définit les projets avec
priorité de réparation de niveau 1 comme étant ceux où la pression maximale
dans la conduite est supérieure à la pression qui produit la résistance ultime
avec (priorité 1a) et sans (priorité 1b) contribution de la résistance du sol. Le bris
peut survenir à tout moment. La réparation doit être effectuée dès que possible
et dans les douze mois.
6. En conséquence, les tuyaux de priorité 1 auraient dû être remplacés au plus tard
avant février 2010.
Page l
7. Les travaux de conception pour le remplacement des quatre tuyaux au sud du
chemin Hunt Club (priorité 1 et 2) ont commencé en décembre 2009, le
calendrier initial des travaux de construction débutant en octobre 2010, ce qui
est de huit mois plus tard que prescrit en raison du risque de défaillance de
priorité 1. Le calendrier de conception initial prévoyait la fin des travaux de
conception et la préparation des documents d‟appel d‟offres avant juin 2010.
8. Lors d‟une réunion de planification tenue le 12 janvier 2010, la Ville a décidé de
reporter le projet, mais d‟achever les travaux de conception au cas où une
situation d‟urgence l‟obligerait à procéder aux travaux de remplacement. Le
gestionnaire de projet a été informé de cette décision par un ingénieur principal
chargé de la remise en état de la conduite d‟eau principale le 19 mai 2010, lequel
a précisé que le retard était attribuable à d‟autres besoins potentiellement
conflictuels pour le système, que les pressions sur les conduites d‟eau principale
et transitoires seraient surveillées par les Opérations et que la conception allait
se poursuivre jusqu‟à la fin advenant qu‟une réparation d‟urgence soit
nécessaire. La Ville a indiqué que la décision de retarder la réparation était
fondée sur d‟autres risques pesant sur le système d‟aqueduc qui n‟auraient pas
été relevés par le consultant qui a effectué l‟inspection au moment de
l‟évaluation de la conduite. Les Services de gestion de l‟eau potable ont effectué
une analyse des pressions transitoires (analyse des pressions d‟eau maximales)
en 2009 afin d‟évaluer la probabilité et l‟ampleur des pressions transitoires qui
pourraient imposer des contraintes aux tuyaux. La Ville a expliqué que la
décision de reporter les réparations de priorité 1 reposait sur la gestion des
risques pour l‟ensemble du réseau d‟aqueduc et que le contrat concernant les
réparations sur l‟avenue Woodroffe allait se poursuivre après l‟achèvement de la
conduite d‟eau principale 2W/2C, laquelle deviendrait une troisième option
pour alimenter le secteur.
9. Au moment de la rupture de la conduite d‟eau principale, en janvier 2011, la
mise en place de la conduite de la zone 2W 2C était en cours, et c‟est pourquoi la
Direction de la conception et de la construction de la Ville a étudié la possibilité
de modifier le contrat afin d‟inclure la section de la conduite d‟eau principale au
nord du chemin Hunt Club. Cependant, Gestion des biens et Gestion de l‟eau
potable ont proposé d‟évaluer en premier l‟état de la conduite d‟eau principale
de l‟avenue Woodroffe afin de relever les points préoccupants. La portée de
l‟évaluation de l‟état de la conduite de janvier/février 2011 était plus vaste que
l‟évaluation de l‟état de 2008 et incluait la section allant de la promenade David
jusqu‟au chemin Hunt Club, en plus de la section évaluée en 2008 (du chemin
Hunt Club jusqu‟au chemin Fallowfield).
10. Le 24 février 2011, Gestion des biens a fourni à Conception et ConstructionOuest un document d‟orientation fondé sur les conclusions de l‟évaluation de
l‟état de la conduite. En comparant les évaluations de l‟état de la conduite de
2008 et de 2011, on a constaté que le nombre de sections de tuyau présentant des
Page li
ruptures de fils était similaire par kilomètre, mais qu‟un plus grand nombre de
tuyaux présentaient une détérioration plus grave. On a en effet constaté une
augmentation importante de la détérioration du tuyau en béton précontraint de
la conduite d‟eau principale par rapport à 2008.
11. Le gestionnaire de projet, qui était au courant que le processus d‟acquisition des
tuyaux pourrait s‟échelonner sur une longue période, a donc proposé l‟achat des
tuyaux auprès d‟un fournisseur unique qui pourrait livrer la quantité requise de
tuyaux dans les délais requis afin d‟accélérer l‟avancement des travaux. Il a
demandé le prix des conduites de remplacement au fournisseur et a reçu sa
réponse le 24 février 2011.
12. Le 1er mars 2011, le chef de projet a informé le fournisseur de tuyaux que la
Ville lui achèterait les tuyaux et les accessoires requis. Le 10 mars 2011, le
gestionnaire de projet a envoyé une autorisation du plan des dépenses
estimatives (E-SPA) au Service des achats pour les tuyaux. Le gestionnaire de
projet a mentionné dans le courriel que la Direction de l‟approvisionnement
avait été tenue au courant tout au long du processus, mais l‟examen des dossiers
n‟a pas permis de trouver de documentation confirmant que c‟était bel et bien le
cas.
13. Le 16 mars, le service des achats a demandé au gestionnaire de projet pour
quelle raison on avait opté pour un fournisseur unique et pourquoi le
fournisseur en question avait été choisi. Les échanges sur le choix d‟un
fournisseur unique se sont poursuivis jusqu‟au 30 mars, date à laquelle on avait
décidé de procéder à un appel d‟offres standard.
14. La correspondance révèle que, au moment de la rupture, en janvier 2011, la Ville
avait réparé la conduite d‟eau principale et envisageait d‟aller en appel d‟offres
pour le remplacement requis des tuyaux restants en vue du début des travaux à
l‟automne de 2011. Cependant, l‟évaluation de l‟état de la conduite d‟eau
principale entre la promenade David et le chemin Fallowfield a révélé que des
sections de la canalisation s‟étaient dégradées considérablement depuis 2008 et
qu‟il y avait une détérioration similaire dans le segment situé au nord du
chemin Hunt Club. D‟après ces résultats, la Ville a décidé de ne pas remettre en
service la section de conduite d‟eau principale allant du chemin Knoxdale à la
promenade Vaan jusqu‟à ce que le remplacement prévu de la conduite d‟eau
principale ait été achevé. Ainsi, la Ville a décidé d‟effectuer le remplacement de
la conduite et les travaux de réparation dès que possible au lieu de remettre
immédiatement la conduite d‟eau principale en service et de risquer un autre
bris.
15. Pendant que la conduite était hors service, l‟alimentation en eau des zones de
service de Barrhaven et de Riverside-Sud a été assurée par une conduite d‟eau
principale unique de 406 mm enfouie le long du chemin Merivale et complétée
par pompage. L‟alimentation temporaire a répondu à la demande pendant cette
Page lii
période, mais la modélisation hydraulique a révélé qu‟elle ne comblerait que
75 % de la demande journalière maximale.
16. À la fin de février 2011, les résultats de l‟évaluation de l‟état de la conduite et de
la modélisation hydraulique ont démontré que les travaux d‟installation ne
pouvaient être reportés jusqu‟à l‟automne et que le projet devrait aller en appel
d‟offres dès que possible.
17. Un certain nombre d‟autres modes de fonctionnement ou de réparation ont été
examinés, y compris les réparations laissant le tuyau en place, comme le tubage
ou le renforcement de la conduite. L‟analyse a conclu que la solution à
privilégier était de creuser une tranchée le long de l‟avenue Woodroffe et de
remplacer la conduite. Les autres options envisagées n‟auraient raccourci
l‟échéancier des travaux que de deux semaines tout au plus, et l‟état de conduite
d‟eau principale après ces travaux n‟aurait pas été aussi satisfaisant.
18. En conséquence, il a fallu imposer une interdiction totale d‟utilisation de l‟eau à
l‟extérieur dans les secteurs de Barrhaven, de Riverside-Sud et de Manotick
jusqu‟à l‟achèvement des travaux afin de ne pas mettre le réseau à sec, d‟avoir à
faire bouillir l‟eau et d‟être incapable de répondre aux exigences en matière de
lutte contre les incendies.
19. L‟examen des demandes de modification associées à ce projet a révélé que ces
demandes étaient entièrement documentées et avaient été passées en revue par
l‟administrateur du contrat et le gestionnaire de projet. En règle générale, les
demandes de modification étaient justifiées pour accélérer l‟avancement des
travaux.
20. La question de l‟assistance policière aux intersections a soulevé des
préoccupations : en raison de l‟importance de la congestion sur l‟avenue
Woodroffe, il a fallu qu‟un policier soit affecté à la circulation de façon
quotidienne. L‟offre initiale ne prévoyait pas le coût d‟un agent en poste pour le
projet. Les coûts supplémentaires se sont établis à 247 637 $, payés par la
variation des quantités prévues à l‟appel d‟offres, et ce, au prix de l‟appel
d‟offres. Les coûts totaux payés étaient de 313 638 $. L‟examen des factures de
l‟entrepreneur pour 1140,5 heures de service d‟un policier indique que le coût
était de 214 346 $, à raison de 188 $/heure. L‟entrepreneur a été payé 99 292 $,
soit un supplément de 46 % sur le coût des services policiers.
21. Le chef de projet aurait dû négocier le coût de cet article, car il s‟agissait
manifestement d‟une variation très importante des quantités, sans compter que
les conditions générales du contrat contiennent des dispositions pour parer à de
telles éventualités. En outre, le mode de paiement de l‟article permet à
l‟entrepreneur de faire un profit sur un service fourni par un service de la Ville à
un autre service de la Ville. En fait, la marge de profit est de 46 %, même si le
nombre d‟heures prévu au contrat n‟est pas dépassé.
Page liii
22. Plutôt que d‟inclure un article avec des prix unitaires, la Ville devrait fournir
une allocation pour le coût des services ne comportant qu‟une marge pour frais
d‟administration pour l‟entrepreneur. Il serait préférable que l‟assistance
policière aux intersections soit facturée directement à la Ville par le Service de
police d‟Ottawa.
Remplacement de la toiture de l’aréna John-Leroux (Stittsville)
1. Les plans de modernisation de l‟aréna comprenaient le remplacement de la
toiture actuelle. Les frais de conception ont totalisé 6 827 $.
2. Les dessins de conception montraient que le toit présentait une pente variable,
allant de 10° près du faîte à 17,4º près de la bordure. Le cahier des charges
exigeait un produit et un modèle précis pour la couverture et le bardage en tôle.
Pendant le processus d‟appel d‟offres, un second fabricant a demandé d‟être
approuvé comme suppléant, ce qui fut fait dans un addenda.
3. Après l‟attribution du contrat, l‟entrepreneur a informé la Ville et le consultant
que le fabricant de matériaux de couverture qu‟il avait retenu (dans la liste des
fournisseurs approuvés fournie dans les documents d‟appel d‟offres) lui avait
indiqué que le type de toiture choisi ne pourrait être installé en raison de la
courbure du toit de l‟aréna.
4. Ce fabricant a proposé un autre produit de sa fabrication, qui serait plus
approprié. La Ville a accepté cette solution, ce qui a entraîné des coûts
supplémentaires en raison des différences de couleur et du revêtement
supplémentaire requis. Cependant, ce nouveau produit n‟a également pas pu
être installé sur le toit.
5. La Ville, le consultant et l‟entrepreneur ont travaillé pendant plusieurs semaines
pour résoudre le problème et ont notamment construit des « maquettes » pour
évaluer des solutions de rechange. L‟entrepreneur estimait qu‟un revêtement
d‟étanchéité pourrait convenir à la configuration du toit. En juin 2009, la Ville a
convenu que l‟idée du consultant ne pouvait être retenue et a demandé à
l‟entrepreneur de procéder aux travaux requis. Cependant, le calendrier des
activités de l‟aréna entrait en conflit avec les méthodes de travail de
l‟entrepreneur. En novembre 2009, la Ville a annulé la commande d‟achat.
6. La Ville a envisagé la possibilité de poursuivre le consultant, mais n‟a
finalement pas donné suite.
7. En février 2010, la Ville a offert à l‟entrepreneur de rétablir la commande
d‟achat, et le projet a été achevé en septembre 2010. Le concept proposé par
l‟entrepreneur en juin 2009 pour le revêtement d‟étanchéité a finalement été
utilisé.
Page liv
8. Les travaux, reposant sur le plan de conception révisé de la toiture, ont été
achevés en septembre 2010. Les coûts supplémentaires ont atteint 39 314 $ en
raison du changement de système de couverture et des retards que celui-ci a
engendrés.
9. Une analyse du calendrier du projet fait ressortir les points suivants.
Le consultant en conception n‟a pas fait preuve de diligence raisonnable en
ne vérifiant pas si le système de couverture présenté dans les documents
d‟appel d‟offres pourrait être effectivement installé.
Le consultant en conception a refusé d‟admettre que le système de
couverture proposé ne pourrait être installé jusqu‟à ce que l‟entrepreneur
et le fournisseur de matériaux de couverture aient démontré que
l‟installation de ce système n‟était pas réalisable pour ce projet.
La Ville a envisagé la possibilité de demander au consultant un
remboursement des coûts supplémentaires engendrés par le changement
du système de couverture et les retards que celui-ci a engendrés, mais a
décidé de ne pas donner suite à cette réclamation.
La Ville a mentionné avoir reçu les services du consultant sur un autre
projet en compensation des frais payés par la Ville sur ce projet. Toutefois,
l‟étendue des services offerts en compensation n‟est pas pleinement
documentée.
Complexe récréatif Goulbourn
1. La construction des deux patinoires du complexe récréatif Goulbourn a débuté
en janvier 2011. Le chef du service du bâtiment a délivré un permis d‟occupation
partielle le 29 mars 2012; le permis d‟occupation définitif n‟a pas été délivré.
2. D‟après le calendrier établi initialement pour le projet en 2010, le contrat devait
prendre fin en janvier 2012. Le calendrier des travaux fourni par l‟entrepreneur
pendant les étapes initiales du projet prévoyait que les travaux seraient terminés
avant la fin de novembre 2011. En septembre 2011, il était évident pour
l‟entrepreneur que le projet ne pourrait pas être terminé conformément au
calendrier initial. Un calendrier révisé a été présenté, avec une date
d‟achèvement prévue au 30 janvier 2012.
3. Les principales raisons de ce retard étaient imputables à des délais touchant la
fabrication, la livraison et l‟érection de la charpente en acier. Au départ, le
fabricant ne voulait pas commencer les dessins d‟atelier avant d‟avoir reçu le
dessin de charpente, signé et scellé, délivré en vue de la construction. Le
calendrier initial était de 25 jours ouvrables, mais les travaux ont pris 75 jours.
En outre, l‟acier de construction a été livré sur le site avant l‟inspection en atelier
requise par le dossier contractuel, et certaines pièces présentaient des défauts. La
Ville a fait inspecter l‟acier reçu sur le chantier, et les défauts ont été corrigés par
l‟entrepreneur.
Page lv
4. La Ville a imposé à l‟entrepreneur des dommages-intérêts de 117 000 $ pour les
retards en déduisant cette somme de trois paiements qu‟elle lui a versés.
5. Le cabinet d‟architecture et les entreprises de génie structurel, mécanique et
électrique retenues par la Ville ont réalisé des inspections et des essais qui ont
permis de fournir une évaluation générale de la construction. En outre, la Ville a
retenu les services une société spécialisée pour l‟inspection de l‟acier de
construction et des soudures et a réalisé une analyse du béton et du compactage,
conformément aux pratiques courantes.
6. Un examen du dossier a révélé que toutes les anomalies constatées dans le
bâtiment ont été corrigées avant le versement du dernier paiement.
7. Les principaux problèmes constatés en lien avec ce projet sont les suivants :
la relation avec le fabricant d‟acier de construction a été conflictuelle dès le
départ, et ce dernier n‟a pas respecté les exigences du contrat;
l‟acier de construction a été livré sans avoir fait l‟objet de l‟inspection
requise en atelier, et certaines pièces présentaient des défauts (qui ont été
corrigés sur le chantier).
Quelques projets examinés
Les constatations ci-après concernent dix projets qui ont été sélectionnés comme
échantillon pour la présentation du contexte du processus global aux fins de
l‟examen des projets susmentionnés. Ces projets ont été examinés conformément à
l‟objectif de vérification no 4 et aux critères connexes.
Prolongement de la partie sud-ouest du Transitway (nord), phase 1
1. Ce projet comprend les travaux de prolongement de la partie sud-ouest du
Transitway, de la promenade Berrigan jusqu‟au chemin Oriska, le passage
inférieur de la promenade Highbury Park et la station Longfield. La valeur
contractuelle du projet, d‟après l‟appel d‟offres, était de 12 457 000 $. La valeur
des demandes de modification a atteint 1 196 238 $, pour une valeur totale finale
du contrat octroyé de13 653 238 $.
2. Plusieurs demandes de modification présentées dans le cadre de ce projet
découlaient d‟une erreur dans les élévations des radiers des égouts pluviaux
indiquée sur un dessin d‟après exécution versé au dossier de la Ville. Les coûts
supplémentaires ayant fait suite à ces modifications ont atteint 440 831 $.
3. La question à l‟examen, dans ce projet, porte sur la précision des dessins d‟après
exécution et le fait que le consultant en conception aurait dû vérifier les radiers
des égouts pluviaux étant donné l‟importance cruciale de cette traverse. Il
semble que la Ville n‟a pas vérifié si elle pouvait recouvrer les coûts de ces
travaux supplémentaires auprès des différents consultants.
Page lvi
4. Pendant la construction du passage supérieur Highbury, on a constaté que la
roche présente à la hauteur des fondations prévues n‟était pas adéquate. Cette
constatation a exigé des travaux de prospection et d‟analyse supplémentaires du
substrat rocheux ainsi qu‟une révision de la conception de la semelle. Les coûts
des demandes de modification ont totalisé 86 132 $. Ces dépenses auraient pu
être évitées si l‟étude géotechnique avait été bien menée.
5. La Ville publie des documents d‟appel d‟offres standard pour les contrats à prix
unitaires, qui incluent une coupe transversale type de la tranchée pour les
conduits et systèmes d‟égout (dessin standard n° S6). Cependant, la largeur
indiquée sur les dessins de conception correspondait à celle d‟une tranchée type
pour deux égouts, contrairement aux données fournies sur le dessin standard.
En conséquence, une demande de modification a été présentée pour les
nouveaux travaux d‟excavation requis. Les coûts des travaux d‟excavation
supplémentaires ont totalisé 18 069 $.
6. Au total, des demandes de modification totalisant 696 881 $ résultaient d‟erreurs
au moment de la conception. De ce montant, on estime que 559 174 $ peuvent
être classés comme des paiements que la Ville a versés et qui auraient pu être
évités au moment de la conception. Rien n‟indique si la Ville a envisagé de
recouvrer les coûts supplémentaires engagés auprès des consultants (consultant
principal et sous-consultant en géotechnique).
Remplacement de la conduite d’eau principale de l’avenue Woodroffe (contrat de
2009)
1. Ce projet comprenait le remplacement d‟une conduite d‟eau principale en vue
de la construction du Transitway sur le côté ouest de l‟avenue Woodroffe, au
sud du chemin Baseline. La valeur contractuelle du projet était de6 327 937 $.
2. Ce projet a progressé sans problème majeur. Treize demandes de modification
totalisant 246 716 $ étaient imputables aux conditions du site ou à des exigences
des Services de gestion de l‟eau potable. La plus importante de ces demandes
concernait la construction d‟une nouvelle chambre de vanne et l‟installation de
la vanne, à la demande des Services de gestion de l‟eau potable (166 509 $). Un
crédit de 50 000 $ a été appliqué en raison de l‟abandon précoce de l‟ancienne
conduite d‟eau principale.
Chemin Sandridge (entre le chemin Hillsdale et l’avenue Merriman)
1. Ce projet portait sur la reconstruction du chemin Sandridge, y compris le
remplacement de la conduite d‟eau principale et des égouts entre le chemin
Hillsdale et l‟avenue Merriman. La valeur contractuelle du projet était de
6 878 000 $.
Page lvii
2. Ce projet a progressé sans problème majeur. Les demandes de modification
présentées au cours du projet, d‟un total de248 026 $, sont imputables aux
conditions du site ou à de nouvelles exigences du service des opérations.
Hydro Ottawa a remboursé les coûts des demandes de modification qu‟elle a
présentées.
Agrandissement du Théâtre Centrepointe
1. Ce projet portait sur l‟agrandissement du Théâtre Centrepointe sur une
superficie de 2 630 mètres carrés. L‟agrandissement comprenait un studio de
répétition, de nouvelles loges, une aire de repos, une salle pour les bénévoles, un
atelier, un quai de chargement intérieur et des salles d‟entreposage ainsi qu‟une
rampe de chargement et un aménagement paysager. La valeur totale du contrat
était de 9 343 824 $.
2. En tout, 129 demandes de modification ont été présentées, pour une valeur
totale de 424 159 $, y compris un crédit de 80 995 $ en tant que solde des
allocations (250 000 $) prévues au contrat. Certaines modifications étaient
nécessaires pour la coordination des travaux de conception. Les modifications
les plus importantes concernaient les changements qu‟il a fallu apporter au toit
afin de permettre le raccord de celui-ci au toit actuel, les changements qu‟il a
fallu apporter à une sous-station hydroélectrique ainsi que des articles spéciaux
dont on a eu besoin vers la toute fin des travaux.
3. Les demandes de modification présentées ont représenté environ 4,5 % de la
valeur totale du projet. En conséquence, on a conclu que la valeur des demandes
de modification présentées pour ce projet était acceptable.
4. La valeur des demandes de modification découlant d‟omissions sur les
documents d‟appel d‟offres a atteint 62 949 $. Même si cette valeur est réputée se
situer dans la marge de 3 % qui est acceptée dans l‟industrie, le fait qu‟il
s‟agissait d‟omissions et non pas de modifications demandées à des fins de
coordination doit être pris en considération.
5. Il convient de noter que le gestionnaire de projet du présent contrat a précisé,
dans les demandes de modification, les raisons de chacune et a classifié ces
demandes en prenant soin d‟indiquer la nature des erreurs et des omissions
faites au moment de la conception. Cette précision est très importante du fait
qu‟elle pourrait faciliter le recouvrement des coûts.
6. Les travaux de construction ont progressé sans problème majeur et ont été
achevés dans les limites du budget établi et de l‟échéancier fixé.
Page lviii
Égout collecteur de Nepean-Ouest –- remise en état par chemisage
1. La remise en état de l‟égout collecteur de Nepean-Ouest a été entreprise dans le
cadre Fonds de stimulation de l‟infrastructure (FSI) du gouvernement fédéral
(Programme du fonds de stimulation économique). Initialement, ce projet devait
être terminé en mars 2011. Cependant, étant donné le report de la date limite du
programme par le gouvernement fédéral, le projet a été achevé en juin 2011.
2. Le contrat initial a été évalué à 3 470 297 $. Le projet a été élargi et prolongé
lorsque le gouvernement fédéral a reporté la date limite du programme. Le
contrat final a été évalué à 3 804 902 $.
3. Une surcharge d‟égout majeure causée par l‟utilisation du contrôleur en temps
réel pour l‟égout unitaire a entraîné des coûts additionnels de 221 346 $.
L‟inquiétude au sujet de cet incident est liée au fait que les plans de l‟ouvrage de
dérivation préparés par l‟entrepreneur avaient été examinés par le gestionnaire
de projet et Opérations.
Les documents relatifs au contrat auraient dû inclure un avertissement
concernant l‟utilisation d‟un contrôleur en temps réel et son incidence
possible sur l‟égout collecteur de Nepean-Ouest.
Durant l‟examen des plans de l‟ouvrage de dérivation soumis par
l‟entrepreneur, Opérations aurait dû mentionner à l‟entrepreneur que le
tunnel pouvait être inondé durant un épisode pluvieux.
Bien qu‟aucune modification aux plans de l‟ouvrage de dérivation n‟eût pu
éviter le refoulement d‟égout dans le tronçon visé de l‟égout collecteur de
Nepean-Ouest, si l‟entrepreneur avait été informé de la possibilité d‟une
inondation, il aurait pu, en modifiant ses procédures, éviter les dommages
au revêtement intérieur et à l‟installation de dérivation qui ont été causés
par l‟inondation.
4. Dans l‟un des plans de l‟ouvrage de dérivation, l‟entrepreneur supposait que la
conduite pouvait traverser des terrains appartenant à la CCN. Cependant, la
Ville ne possédait aucune servitude sur ces terrains et a dû obtenir un droit de
passage temporaire de la CCN. Comme il a dû attendre l‟autorisation de la
CCN, l‟entrepreneur a présenté une réclamation pour frais de retard; il a, en
outre, et utilisé un autre tracé pour le passage de la conduite de dérivation. La
situation aurait pu être évitée si les documents relatifs au contrat avaient été
préparés conformément aux exigences suivantes.
L‟entrepreneur ne doit faire passer une conduite de dérivation qu‟à
l‟intérieur des limites des emprises et des servitudes existantes.
L‟entrepreneur peut choisir la méthode de pose d‟une conduite de
dérivation, mais la Ville en choisit le tracé.
L‟entrepreneur doit faire approuver par la Ville l‟utilisation d‟un autre
tracé. Si ce tracé n‟est pas approuvé, il doit faire passer la conduite de
dérivation par le tracé indiqué.
Page lix
Station de pompage de l’eau de la promenade Campeau
1. La station de pompage de l‟eau de la promenade Campeau fait partie de la
conduite principale 3W. La valeur initiale du contrat a été évaluée à 4 478 000 $
(moins-disant). Il est intéressant de constater que l‟écart entre le moins-disant les
deuxième et troisième moins-disants était inférieur à 255 000 $, ce qui montre
que la Ville a obtenu un prix raisonnable pour les travaux.
2. Des coûts additionnels d‟environ 165 700 $ ont résulté de modifications visant à
assurer la conformité aux exigences du Code du bâtiment ou à régler d‟autres
problèmes de conception. La valeur finale du contrat a été évaluée à 4 807 853 $.
3. La réalisation du projet s‟est déroulée sans problème majeur, et ce, jusqu‟à ce
que le projet devienne opérationnel.
4. Les Services de gestion de l‟eau potable de la Ville ont constaté que le système
SCADA (système d‟acquisition et de contrôle des données) installé par le soustraitant ne répondait pas aux normes de la Ville.
5. Le sous-traitant a construit et installé le panneau de commande local sans
fournir les dessins d‟atelier ou obtenir l‟avis de Services de gestion de l‟eau
potable. Le procès-verbal de la première réunion visant à recenser les lacunes
montre que le test d‟acceptation usine pour le panneau de commande local
n‟avait pas été effectué et que ce panneau n‟était pas homologué CSA. Les
dessins d‟atelier ont été soumis pour les composants du panneau mais pas pour
le panneau complet.
6. Le processus de résolution du différend concernant le panneau de commande
local s‟est échelonné d‟avril 2010 à février 2011 (dix mois).
7. Étant donné que l‟entrepreneur a pu installer un panneau de commande local
inadéquat et que le consultant a recommandé le paiement des travaux, on peut
conclure que le processus d‟inspection a été déficient. Il est raisonnable de
penser que le consultant aurait dû se rendre compte que le panneau de
commande local était installé sans que les étapes stipulées au contrat soient
respectées. Le consultant est donc en partie responsable du retard dans
l‟achèvement de la station de pompage.
8. En conséquence, le projet a été retardé de manière importante et a été achevé
presque une année et demie plus tard que prévu.
Promenade Strandherd (de Crestway à Prince of Wales) incluant l’élargissement de
la promenade Prince of Wales
1. Les travaux de prolongement de la promenade Strandherd, de la promenade
Crestway à la promenade Prince of Wales, ont commencé en août 2009 et se sont
terminés en septembre 2011. Le contrat initial a été évalué à 14 892 000 $. Des
demandes de modification d‟une valeur de2 064 769 $ ont été approuvées et
payées, ce qui a porté la valeur du projet à 15 997 123 $.
Page lx
2. Selon un examen des demandes de modification, des coûts se chiffrant à
700 175 $ ont résulté de modifications requises parce qu‟on avait oublié d‟inclure
certains composants au moment de la conception du projet. Les demandes de
modification pour des ouvrages d‟Hydro Ottawa se sont chiffrées à 244 654 $,
dont 234 084 $ ont été remboursés à la Ville par le service public.
3. La Ville a défrayé une demande de modification d‟une valeur de 16 500 $ pour
l‟installation de sismographes servant à assurer la surveillance des vibrations
durant les activités de construction. Ce montant n‟aurait pas dû être payé par la
Ville.
4. Le projet a été achevé à l‟intérieur du délai imparti et sans dépassement du
budget global. Cependant, un nombre considérable de modifications ont dû être
apportées en raison d‟omissions au moment de la conception.
Conduite principale reliant 3W – Phase 1, partie 1 (de la promenade de l’Outaouais à
Moodie)
1. Le branchement de la conduite principale de la zone 3W est un composant
majeur du réseau de distribution d‟eau potable de la Ville d‟Ottawa. La pose du
tronçon visé a commencé le 20 mai 2010; le contrat initial a été évalué à
11 867 325 $.
2. Des demandes de modification d‟une valeur de 762 817 $ ont été approuvées et
payées, portant la valeur finale du contrat à 11 739 514 $. La raison pour laquelle
la valeur finale du contrat est pratiquement identique à sa valeur initiale est que
les dépenses provisoires avaient été estimées à 785 000 $ et que seul un montant
de 13 815 $ a été utilisé.
3. La principale inquiétude liée à ce projet est qu‟une proportion importante
(297 161 $) des modifications requises durant la construction résultait de
problèmes de conception. La plupart de ces problèmes concernaient des conflits
non résolus avec les services publics et privés. La demande de modification la
plus importante, d‟une valeur de 216 000 $, portait sur les travaux nécessaires au
branchement de la conduite principale au reste du réseau; cela n‟a pas été causé
par une erreur au moment de la conception, mais parce que la Ville a exigé la
mise en place d‟un plan d‟urgence à la station de pompage de Carlington
Heights, plan qui a nécessité l‟apport de modifications aux canalisations et au
système de pompage en vue d‟assurer un approvisionnement en eau
ininterrompu en cas de défaillance de la conduite d‟amenée durant le piquage
sur conduite en charge. On peut cependant dire qu‟il s‟agit d‟un problème de
conception parce que le consultant aurait dû prévoir la mise en place d‟un plan
d‟urgence pour le branchement de la nouvelle conduite au réseau.
4. Une phase ultérieure du projet a été mise en œuvre dans le cadre d‟un contrat
subséquent relevant du même consultant. Or, durant cette phase, le consultant
n‟a pas tenu compte de la présence d‟un important volume d‟eau souterraine;
Page lxi
cette omission a entraîné des coûts de plus 1,6 million de dollars. Le Ville a
entrepris une poursuite contre le consultant en conception et le consultant en
géotechnique.
Égout collecteur de Cave Creek, phase 1 (de l’avenue Harmer à la rue Faraday)
1. Ce projet prévoyait la construction du nouvel égout collecteur de Cave Creek,
phase 1, de l‟avenue Harmer à la rue Faraday. Le contrat a été octroyé le
18 août 2010. Les documents d‟appel d‟offres exigeaient l‟achèvement
substantiel des travaux avant le 21 décembre 2010 et leur achèvement complet
avant le 15 mai 2011.
2. Le certificat d‟autorisation délivré par le ministère de l‟Environnement n‟a pas
été reçu avant le 14 septembre. Les travaux ont aussi été retardés par les travaux
de Bell, qui devait avoir quitté le site en septembre 2010, mais qui ne l‟a pas fait
avant novembre 2010.
3. Le contrat initial a été évalué à 3 505 330 $. Les demandes de modification du
projet se sont chiffrées à 367 888 $.
4. Environ 332 000 $ des coûts additionnels ont résulté du retard avec lequel ont
commencé les travaux de construction.
5. La Ville a payé 61 930 $ pour un égout pluvial avec ponceau à dalot, mais un
article du contrat prévoyait la fourniture et l‟installation d‟un ponceau de même
taille. La Ville a expliqué que le tronçon visé ne pouvait pas être payé en
fonction des prix unitaires parce que le tronçon d‟égout pluvial remplacé était
en béton coulé sur place et que son remplacement exigeait la démolition d‟un
ouvrage en béton existant, la mise en place de deux dalots en béton
préfabriqués, l‟installation de goujons destinés à lier le nouvel ouvrage au
ponceau en béton existant et la construction d‟un nouveau tronçon en béton
coulé sur place.
Reconstruction du carrefour giratoire de la promenade Prince of Wales à la hauteur
de la Ferme expérimentale centrale
1. Ce projet prévoyait la reconstruction d‟un carrefour giratoire afin de
reconfigurer l‟intersection en fonction d‟un rond-point.
2. L‟ordre de commencement des travaux a été donné par la Ville le 18 mai 2011.
Le contrat exigeait l‟achèvement substantiel des travaux avant le 15 juillet 2011
et leur achèvement complet avant le 16 septembre 2011. Au commencement des
travaux, la valeur du contrat se chiffrait à 1 191 778 $.
3. Le coût des demandes de modification a atteint 57 560 $. Sur ce montant,
36 135 $ ont été versés pour le remplacement des conduites d‟amenée du bassin
collecteur aux égouts pluviaux appartenant à Travaux publics et Services
gouvernementaux Canada (TPSGC). La méthode de raccordement avait été
approuvée par Travaux publics et la Ville, sauf que l‟entente intervenue entre les
Page lxii
deux parties n‟a pas été remise au concepteur. En conséquence, la méthode de
raccordement illustrée sur les dessins et utilisée sur le terrain ne répondait pas
aux exigences de TPSGC. La Ville a ordonné à l‟entrepreneur de retirer les
conduites d‟amenée qui avaient été posées conformément aux plans de
conception et de les réinstaller en suivant les instructions de TPSGC.
4. Le problème découlant de l‟installation de conduites d‟amenée non appropriées
aurait pu être évité si une coordination avait été assurée entre les gestionnaires
de projets des différents services (Services d‟infrastructure et Urbanisme et
Gestion de la croissance).
Domaines d’économies possibles
Voici les domaines d‟économies possibles qui ont été relevés dans le cadre de la
présente vérification.
Assistance policière aux intersections – Le paiement de l‟assistance policière aux
intersections devrait être versé directement par la Ville au Service de Police.
Attendu que le coût horaire moyen de l‟assistance policière est de 188 $ et que le
prix unitaire des soumissions est de 275 $/l‟heure, la Ville pourrait économiser plus
de 435 000 $ en majoration des frais des entrepreneurs pour l‟utilisation d‟un total
de 5 000 heures d‟assistance policière.
Recouvrement des coûts associés aux demandes de modification résultant
d’erreurs et d’omissions au moment de la conception – Selon l‟échantillon de
projets examiné, les demandes de modification représentaient en moyenne 9 % de
la valeur des contrats, et 22 % des demandes de modification ont été présentées
pour la correction d‟erreurs et d‟omissions au moment de la conception. La valeur
des projets échantillonnés (123 766 000 $) représentait environ 30 % de la valeur
totale des contrats octroyés par la Ville en 2011 (412,4 millions de dollars). En se
basant sur la valeur moyenne des demandes de modification, 37,1 millions de
dollars seraient versés pour les demandes de modification présentées pour
l‟ensemble des contrats. Si 22 % des demandes de modification résultent d‟erreurs
ou d‟omissions au moment de la conception, le montant versé pour les demandes
présentées en ce sens est de 8.2 millions de dollars. En ne recouvrant que le 15 %
associé aux frais généraux et aux marges bénéficiaires des entrepreneurs pour ces
demandes de modification, la Ville pourrait réaliser des économies de l‟ordre de
1.2 million de dollars.
Recommandations et réponses de la direction
Recommandation 1
Que la Ville, en plus de faire appel à l’Association de la construction d’Ottawa
(ACO) pour l’affichage de ses appels d’offres, veille à ce que ceux-ci apparaissent
tous sur « Link2Build » (assurant ainsi leur diffusion plus large) et conserve les
documents s’y rapportant.
Page lxiii
Réponse de la direction
La direction est d‟accord avec cette recommandation et celle-ci a été mise en
œuvre.
La Direction de l‟approvisionnement garde maintenant tous les documents sur le
dossier d‟approvisionnement confirmant que les exigences ont également été
affichées sur « Link2Build ».
Recommandation 2
Que la Ville officialise ses relations avec l’ACO et « Link2Build » et veille
notamment à ce que les droits d’examen et de vérification du processus de la
Ville soient consignés.
La direction est d‟accord avec cette recommandation.
La Direction de l‟approvisionnement officialisera les relations de la Ville avec
l‟Association de la construction d‟Ottawa (ACO) et « Link2Build » en veillant
également à ce que la Ville ait le droit d‟examiner et de vérifier les processus
consignés d‟ici la fin du quatrième trimestre de 2013.
Recommandation 3
Que la Ville élabore une politique selon laquelle les gestionnaires de projets
seraient tenus de consigner dûment les erreurs et les omissions au moment de la
conception décelées dans le cadre du processus de surveillance de la
construction. Les gestionnaires de projets devraient être notamment tenus de
classer les demandes de modification par catégories (erreurs et omissions au
moment de la conception, problèmes de conception, conditions du site, etc.) de
manière à faciliter le recouvrement des coûts auprès des consultants.
La direction élaborera une politique et/ou des procédures sur la consignation
des erreurs et des omissions au moment de la conception décelées dans le cadre
du processus de surveillance de la construction d‟ici la fin du deuxième trimestre
de 2014.
Il convient de noter que certaines catégories (p. ex. conditions du site) ne
donnent pas lieu à un recouvrement des coûts auprès des consultants. (Voir la
réponse de la direction à la recommandation 4 concernant le recouvrement des
coûts.)
Page lxiv
Recommandation 4
Que la Ville élabore une politique et les procédures sur le recouvrement des
coûts liés aux demandes de modification et des coûts d’ingénierie initiaux liés à
des éléments de construction précis auprès des consultants lorsque les coûts
additionnels résultent d’erreurs ou d’omissions commises au moment de la
conception.
La direction élaborera une politique sur le recouvrement des coûts liés aux
demandes de modification et des coûts d‟ingénierie initiaux liés à des éléments
de construction précis auprès des consultants lorsque les coûts additionnels
résultent d‟erreurs ou d‟omissions commises au moment de la conception. Cette
mesure sera mise en place avant la fin du deuxième trimestre de 2014.
Recommandation 5
Que la Ville élabore un système permettant la consignation du rendement des
entrepreneurs ayant obtenu des contrats municipaux et qu’elle élargisse le
processus d’évaluation des soumissions relatives à la construction afin d’inclure
formellement un critère de rendement antérieur des soumissionnaires au
processus d’évaluation des soumissions et d’octroi des contrats, l’objectif étant de
faire en sorte que les contrats soient accordés en tenant compte du rendement
antérieur, de l’expérience et du personnel en plus du prix le plus compétitif.
Actuellement, le processus d‟appels d‟offres de la Ville d‟Ottawa comprend une
disposition selon laquelle une entreprise doit avoir une expérience concluante
dans la réalisation de projets d‟envergure et de complexité semblables. Les
entreprises qui sont incapables de faire la preuve d‟une telle expérience sont
jugées irrecevables et ne se voient pas accorder le contrat.
Un projet a été lancé au sein de la Direction de l‟approvisionnement. Il vise à
permettre la mise au point d‟un système électronique qui enregistrera le
rendement antérieur d‟un entrepreneur et y donnera suite. Ce système sera mis
en place avant la fin du quatrième trimestre de 2014. Les Services
d‟infrastructure travailleront avec la Direction de l‟approvisionnement à
déterminer comment le rendement antérieur affectera l‟octroi des contrats à
l‟avenir.
Page lxv
Recommandation 6
Que la Ville s’assure que, dans le cas des ponceaux pour lesquels on envisage
une réduction de la capacité d’écoulement, le processus de réfection comprenne
la réalisation des études de conception hydrologique et hydraulique requises.
œuvre.
Depuis février 2011, Gestion des biens immobiliers a modifié ses pratiques par
l‟ajout d‟une évaluation hydraulique pour les options de réfection des ponceaux
susceptibles d‟entraîner une réduction de la capacité d‟écoulement.
Recommandation 7
Que la Ville mette en œuvre un programme d’inspection de ses conduites d’eau
principales critiques qu’elle sait exposées à un environnement corrosif ou qu’elle
soupçonne de l’être; que la Ville prenne les mesures qui s’imposent en fonction
des résultats des inspections.
œuvre.
En juin 2012, les Services environnementaux ont présenté au Comité de
l‟environnement un rapport sur un programme d‟évaluation conditionnel pour
les conduites principales d‟eau potable (ACS2012-COS-ESD-0014). Ce rapport
expose une approche fondée sur les risques pour l‟inspection et la gestion des
conduites d‟eau principales.
Recommandation 8
Que la Ville présente au Conseil, dans le cadre du Rapport annuel du système de
gestion de la qualité de l’eau potable, un sommaire des inspections menées à
l’égard de ses conduites d’eau principales critiques, y compris un plan d’action
pour la réparation des conduites désignées comme étant en très piètre condition.
Un sommaire des inspections concernant les conduites d‟eau principales
critiques, y compris un plan d‟action pour la réparation des conduites désignées
en très piètre état, sera incorporé au Rapport annuel du système de gestion de la
qualité de l‟eau potable de 2013, lequel sera soumis au Conseil au deuxième
trimestre de 2014.
Page lxvi
Recommandation 9
Que la Ville modifie le mode de paiement des services municipaux dispensés par
d’autres services de la Ville afin que ceux-ci ne donnent pas aux entrepreneurs la
possibilité de réaliser des profits indus.
La direction mènera un examen des exigences qui modifieront le mode de
paiement des services municipaux dispensés par d‟autres services de la Ville afin
de ne pas donner aux entrepreneurs la possibilité de réaliser des profits indus. À
moins que des restrictions ne soient précisées, cette mesure sera en place avant la
fin du deuxième trimestre de 2014.
Recommandation 10
Que la Ville s’assure que des contraintes opérationnelles, telles que l’exploitation
d’un contrôleur en temps réel, soient clairement décrites dans les documents
contractuels et que le risque lié à la surveillance des prévisions météorologiques
soit transféré à l’entrepreneur.
La direction travaillera avec Services environnementaux pour faire en sorte que
les contraintes opérationnelles soient entièrement décrites dans les documents
contractuels et que le risque lié à la surveillance des prévisions météorologiques
soit transféré à l‟entrepreneur. Cette mesure sera intégrée aux modalités
contractuelles avant la fin du deuxième trimestre de 2014.
Recommandation 11
Que la Ville spécifie, dans les projets de renouvellement des égouts,
l’emplacement des conduites de dérivation du réseau d’égout et exige de
l’entrepreneur qu’il situe toute conduite de dérivation sur des emprises ou des
servitudes établies. Les entrepreneurs qui proposent d’autres tracés sur d’autres
emplacements le feront à leurs risques et à leurs frais, y compris les
conséquences des retards.
Page lxvii
Dans tous les futurs contrats de renouvellement des égouts, la Ville exigera que
les conduites de dérivation soient situées sur des emprises et des servitudes
établies. Si l‟entrepreneur propose d‟autres emplacements, le contrat devra
spécifier que ce sera à ses risques et à ses frais, y compris les conséquences des
retards. Cette mesure sera intégrée aux modalités contractuelles avant la fin du
deuxième trimestre de 2014.
Recommandation 12
Que la Ville modifie le document de délimitation de sorte que les engagements
pris par tous les services soient explicitement examinés dans ce document.
La direction modifiera le document de délimitation de sorte que les engagements
pris par tous les services soient explicitement examinés dans ce document. Cette
mesure sera en place avant la fin du deuxième trimestre de 2014.
Recommandation 13
Que la Ville informe les gestionnaires de projets que les dommages-intérêts sont
utilisés pour amener les entrepreneurs à respecter leur calendrier, mais qu’ils ne
sont efficaces que dans la mesure où les gestionnaires de projets les facturent aux
entrepreneurs.
œuvre.
Durant le troisième trimestre de 2013, la direction a émis une directive pour faire
en sorte que les gestionnaires de projets imposent des dommages-intérêts aux
entrepreneurs en conformité avec les documents d‟appel d‟offres standard de la
Ville.
Conclusion
Le processus de supervision des contrats de construction de la Ville est exhaustif et
comparable à celui utilisé par d‟autres municipalités et par le ministère des
Transports de l‟Ontario.
La vérification a permis de constater qu‟une proportion substantielle de la hausse
des coûts associés aux demandes de modification résultait d‟erreurs et d‟omissions
des consultants et que la Ville ne recouvre pas ces coûts auprès des consultants. Elle
le fait pour les demandes de modification présentées par Hydro Ottawa et devrait
aussi le faire pour les demandes de modification requises en raison des erreurs et
des omissions des consultants.
Page lxviii
Remerciements
Nous tenons à remercier la direction pour la collaboration et l‟assistance accordées à
l‟équipe de vérification.
Page lxix
1 BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction
The Audit of Construction Supervision was included in the 2012 Audit Plan of the
Office of the Auditor General (OAG), approved by City Council on December 14,
2011.
1.2 Responsible Department
Construction Services in the context of this audit comprise the process of contract
administration of construction contracts for City infrastructure. The construction
services include the preparation of tender documents, tendering, evaluation of
tenders, contract administration, inspection, payment certificates, change order, and
cost control. The City does not have construction forces for capital projects.
Construction Services for City projects are carried out by the Infrastructure Services
Department. The City‟s Infrastructure Services Department is responsible for the
asset management and design and construction of the entire City owned
infrastructure and for the design and construction of all roads, bridges, culverts,
retaining walls, transit stations, water and sewers.
The organization chart for Infrastructure Services is presented below.
Infrastructure
Services
Department
Asset
Management
Business &
Technical
Services
Design &
Construction Municipal East
Design &
Construction Municipal West
Design &
Construction Building & Parks
Construction services are provided by the three design and construction branches,
namely: Municipal East; Municipal West; and, Buildings & Parks.
2 SCOPE
The audit scope consists of a review of the construction supervision process used
during construction of capital works projects by the City. The projects examined
were constructed in 2010 and 2011, except for two that were constructed in 2004 and
2006.
Page 1
The audit examined the projects listed in Table 1 below, which were brought to the
attention of the Auditor General by Councillors. The review focussed on the
specific concerns raised by the Councillors, in addition to the overall review of the
delivery of construction services.
Table 1: Projects Referred by Councillors
Project
Concerns of the Councillors
1
Transitway
Installation of manhole covers along the travelled
lanes and on the path of the bus wheels.
2
Review of cost compared to the size of the project;
review of the procurement process.
3
Townline
Replacement,
433080
4
Cavanagh Bridge (John Contract awarded to same contractor as Structure
Shaw Road), Structure 433080, the issues are the same. Note that this
433040
project was completed in 2006.
5
Dunrobin Road Culvert, Culvert was flooded, was rehabilitated, flooded
Structure 338180
again, and was replaced completely in 2011.
6
King Edward
Reconstruction
7
Woodroffe
Avenue Following a watermain break in January 2011,
Watermain Replacement
construction did not start until April 2011. The
concern is whether the work could have been done
in the winter or early spring. Summer construction
affected the residents, including water restrictions
due to the temporary water service.
8
John Leroux (Stittsville) The roof repairs were delayed until late 2009
Arena Upgrades
because the materials did not fit the curvature of
the roof; work was not completed until 2010.
9
Goulbourn
Complex
Page 2
Bridge Contractor with poor performance was awarded
Structure the contract, previous project not completed on
time, increase in risk to City. Note that this project
was completed in 2004.
Avenue Concerns with basement cracks in a number of
properties.
Recreation Ice pad addition was started in 2011 and
completed in 2012. There is a concern with quality
assurance and control, and how they may affect
the warranty.
In order to provide context of the overall process to the review of the above
projects, ten projects completed in 2011 and 2012 were examined, representing a
total construction value of $123,766,000, which constitute approximately 11% of the
total budget value of the projects that were active in the City in 2011. The 10
projects were of small, medium and large size. The following projects were selected
as a representative sample based on these criteria:
Table 2: Selected Projects Reviewed
Per Infrastructure Services Department
Projects
Estimate at
Completion
Cost ($000s)
1
SW Transitway Extension (North) Stage 1 - Fallowfield to $17,568
Berrigan
2
Woodroffe Ave. Watermain Replacement (Baseline to Navaho)
3
Sandridge Rd (Hillsdale Rd to Merriman Ave) - Road, $8,000
Watermain & Sewer
4
$11,850
5
$3,800
6
$3,500
7
Strandherd Dr. (Crestway to Prince of Wales) incl. widening of $35,000
Prince of Wales
8
3W Feedermain Link - Phase 1, Part 1 (Ottawa River Pkwy to $32,000
Moodie Drive)
9
$4,827
$6,000
10 Prince of Wales Roundabout Reconstruction at Central $1,221
Experimental Farm
TOTAL Estimate at Completion Cost of Projects Examined
$123,766
Change orders were reviewed in the projects listed in Table 1 and five of the
projects raised by Councillors, where change orders were applicable. In total
change orders of 15 projects were reviewed.
In all projects, we reviewed the costs in comparison with the authorities. Particular
attention was given to the change orders.
The audit encompassed the following tasks:
Review legislative framework;
Review City policies, procedures, standards and practices;
Page 3
Review industry procedures, standards and practices;
Review background data;
Obtain and review all files for the project, as provided by the City;
Conduct interviews with individuals involved in the various projects;
Conduct site visits, as required;
Prepare draft report for fact verification;
Conduct additional interviews for confirmation of issues, as required; and,
Submit draft report for management review.
2.1 Review Legislative Framework
The audit began by reviewing the legislative framework for the construction
services. In Ontario, construction-related legislation and regulations include the
following:
Occupational Health and Safety Act and Ontario Regulation 213/91
Construction Projects
Construction Lien Act
Ontario Building Code Act
Ontario Water Resources Act
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code
2.2 Review City’s Policies, Procedures, Standards and Practices
Pertinent City's policies, procedures, standards, and practices were examined and
reviewed, including:
Project Manager‟s Procedures Manual, 2006
Inspection Manual for City‟s Construction Contracts, May 2003
Standard Tender Documents for Unit Price Contracts, Volumes No. 1 and 2
The Canadian Construction Documents Committee (CCDC) General Conditions for
Stipulated Price Contracts are used by the City for building contracts.
The Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications are included by reference in the
Standard Tender Documents for Unit Price Contracts.
2.3 Review Industry Policies, Procedures, Standards and
Practices
The City‟s policies, procedures, standards, and practices are based on those used by
other municipalities and ministries in Ontario.
Page 4
2.4 Review Project Files
All the files and reports for each project, as provided by the City, were reviewed.
Collection and review of the background information were undertaken in light of
the audit objectives and criteria.
2.5 Review Background Data
Background data available from the City was collected and reviewed. In general
terms, this included tender documents, bid analysis data, construction
administration files, construction inspection data and quality assurance data.
2.6 Review Project Files
Project files in hard copy and electronic format, where available, were provided by
the City for review. The review of construction files encompassed the process from
tendering to substantial performance.
2.7 Interviews
Interviews were held with City staff involved in the various projects.
3 OBJECTIVES
On the basis of the information gathered during the preliminary assessment, and
the corresponding analysis of that information, the scope of the audit was
synthesized in the audit objectives. The criteria attached to each audit objective
explain the scope of the review. These were presented in the Audit Plan, which was
reviewed by the City.
Audit Objective No. 1 - Examine and evaluate the processes and methodologies
pertaining to the Construction Supervision Procedures followed by the City.
Criteria:
Review of tender documents
Examination of tendering process, including design/build projects
Review of contract documents
Construction administration files
Assignment of project manager, project supervisor and inspectors
Construction inspection tasks and procedures
Procedures for management of change orders and extra work orders
Claims process procedures
Page 5
Audit Objective No. 2 - Determine whether the processes and methodologies are
consistent and compliant with all relevant policies, procedures, legislation and
regulations.
Criteria:
Tendering process
Cost control
Management of change and extra work orders
Management of claims by contractor
Audit Objective No. 3 - Examine nine specific projects and specific issues brought
to the attention of the Auditor General by Members of Council, to determine if they
are consistent with relevant policies, procedures, legislation, and regulations.
Criteria:
Review of specific projects and issues indicated by Councillors
Claims management
Cost control
Page 6
Audit Objective No. 4 - Examine a sample of ten construction projects completed in
2011 to determine if they are consistent with relevant policies, procedures,
legislation, and regulations.
Criteria:
Review of ten sample projects
Claims management
Cost control
4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the analysis and the findings of the audit are presented in this section.
The discussion that follows is organized on the basis of the audit objectives
presented in Section 3.
4.1 Audit Objective No. 1
Examine and evaluate the processes and methodologies pertaining to the
Construction Supervision Procedures followed by the City.
The City has established a procurement process for construction services that
requires preparation of bid documents for all projects to be solicited.
The procurement process is carried out by Supply Branch, based on the estimated
cost of construction. For the projects reviewed in this audit, the solicitation methods
were competitive Request for Tenders.
The City uses a procurement process for construction services that requires public
solicitation of bids for the work. Bidding opportunities for construction projects are
sent to the Ottawa Construction Association (OCA), who publishes them and
administers the issue of solicitation documents for interested contractors.
Solicitations are not published in other bidding opportunity advertising sites unless
the project requires highly specialized contractors, in which case the City uses
Page 7
MERX2 for advertising. MERX has no affiliation to construction associations and
has been in operation for at least 15 years, and is widely known in Ontario.
Projects posted at the OCA are available for viewing on site or online by members
of the OCA. Non-members can purchase the solicitation documents at a higher
cost. During the audit, the solicitation document process for non-members was
tested by registering and downloading the documents for one project. The process
was clear and relatively straightforward.
The City has advised that tenders are published by OCA in Link2Build, a new
electronic bid advertisement board. Link2Build is a website that publishes
construction bid opportunities (primarily non-residential) published by local and
regional construction associations; it has been in operation for about one year.
The concern with the method of tender advertising is that the City only posts
bidding opportunities with OCA (and Link2Build as noted above).Consequently,
tenders do not get as wide distribution outside of the City of Ottawa or the Ottawa
area than they would if they were published on a bid opportunity listing system
that has wider scope, such as MERX. Bidding opportunities would receive wider
distribution if they are published in more general sites, such as MERX. It can be
expected that advertising bidding opportunities in a wider area will result in the
City getting bids for their tenders which would result is that the greater exposure of
tenders will result in lower prices for City contracts.
Link2Build is a relatively new service that has been in operation for about a year
and links to other construction associations in Ontario. Projects posted at OCA are
posted by them on Link2Build. MERX is well established and well known in the
industry, as it has been in operation for more than 15 years. Whether or not
contractors from outside the Ottawa area are willing to bid on a particular job will
depend on a number of factors; however, if contractors are not aware of a project
because it was not advertised widely enough, they cannot decide whether or not to
bid.
The Delegation of Authority reports to Council identify the billing addresses or
head offices of the companies awarded contracts, as extracted from SAP. As a
result, it may appear as if a contract was awarded to a company from outside of
Ottawa, when in fact the work will be performed by the local office, or local
representatives.
In its annual report to Council, Supply Branch analyzes the Delegation of Authority
reports to identify contracts awarded to and/or performed by local companies.
According to the annual report, when adjusted to remove goods and services not
available locally (e.g., transit buses are not manufactured in Ottawa, nor is winter
2
MERX is an electronic tendering service with Canada-wide scope.
Page 8
rock salt mined locally), approximately 94.5% of the City‟s annual purchasing dollar
was spent in Ottawa and the surrounding area.
Table 3: Analysis of Local Purchasing by Quarter
Per Supply Branch
Q1:
2011
Q2:
2011
Q3:
2011
Q4:
2011
BEFORE removing purchases not available locally:
69.6%
85.7%
78.9%
80.7%
AFTER removing purchasing not available locally:
91.4%
92.9%
97.6%
93.7%
Table 4: Geographical Vendor Breakdown for 2009 to 2011 Contracts Awarded
Under Delegation of Authority
Per Supply Branch
2011
Region
Ottawa and area
Ontario
Quebec
All Others
Total
2010
2009
Dollar Value
% of Total
Dollar Value
% of Total
Dollar Value
% of Total
$898,901,307
$22,897,121
$10,522,412
$18,607,380
$950,928,220
94.5%
2.4%
1.1%
2.0%
100.0%
$754,027,060
$18,187,233
$13,028,587
$12,077,843
$797,320,723
94.6%
2.3%
1.6%
1.5%
100.0%
$732,055,748
$24,918,710
$5,796,562
$4,805,783
$767,576,803
95.4%
3.2%
0.8%
0.6%
100.0%
Supply Branch did a 2011 “buy local” analysis isolating only construction contracts.
Based on this analysis, 808 of the total 884 construction contracts awarded in 2011
(91.4%) were awarded to local firms. When considering dollar value, this figure
rises to 96.6%.
Table 5: 2011 “Buy Local” of Construction Contracts
Per Supply Branch
# of
Construction
Contracts
Dollar Value
% of Dollar
Value
Ottawa & Area
808
$397,711,493
96.6%
Ontario
50
$11,995,007
2.9%
Quebec
21
$1,845,407
0.4%
Other
5
$226,940
0.1%
Total
884
$411,778,847
100.0%
Region
Page 9
Information provided by OCA indicates that approximately 9% of the total
Infrastructure Services Department tenders (110 out of 1,271) had tender document
takers that were from outside of the Ottawa and surrounding area (defined as 50
km from the City‟s boundary). The City provided data that showed that, of these,
five tenders were awarded to contractors from outside the Ottawa and surrounding
area, comprising less than 1% of the total value of construction contracts awarded
by the City ($363,200,000).
Recommendation 1
To provide a wider circulation of tenders, that the City, in addition to posting
tenders with the Ottawa Construction Association, ensure that all tenders are
posted on “Link2Build” and retain documentation of this.
Management Response
Supply Branch now retains documentation on the procurement file confirming
that the requirement was also posted on “Link2Build”.
Page 10
The projects examined, with one exception, were constructed using a design-tenderconstruction format of procurement. The Dunrobin Road culvert replacement was
constructed using a time-and-materials basis immediately after the second flood
event, due to the need to re-open the road very quickly. None of the projects
referred by the Councillors and those selected as representative projects were
constructed using a design/build process.
The City carries out a bid analysis for all tenders, comparing the Cost Estimate
prepared before tendering with the various bids. In general the bid analysis
compares the prices for the various components (items) of the contract to enable the
project managers to assess any trends in the various bids. Awards are made in
accordance with the selection methodology identified in the solicitation document.
This procedure is similar to that used generally by other Ontario municipalities.
The contractor is selected based on the methodology identified in the solicitation. In
the case of the projects examined this was based on lowest responsive bid.
The City does not have a policy and procedures to enable explicit evaluation of the
past performance of contractors on previous City contracts when determining the
award of a new contract. The City advises that a prequalification process is used in
large complex projects, and that it has the right to request a firm‟s experience in
successfully completing projects of similar size and complexity. However, the City
does not always use these methods, and past performance does not enter explicitly
into the bid evaluation. As a result, contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder
meeting the bonding and insurance requirements.
The City has developed a document for reporting supplier performance during the
course of a contract; however, if the contractor completes the contract without
default, they are eligible to bid in future City contracts; even if the contract process
is fraught with difficulties, delays, and extra costs caused by poor contractor
performance. The only penalty considered is if Supply Branch barrs the contractor
from bidding on future City projects. A performance evaluation method that is
taken into account in the evaluation of future bid opportunities is necessary to
distinguish between contractors who perform well from those who do not.
Past performance should be documented and a rating system established to enable
the City to take into account contractors past performance when they are competing
for new work. The City currently has a Contractor Performance Appraisal Form to
document performance; the form is included in Appendix X-2 of the Project
Manager Manual. This form, with some modifications, would be a good basis for
contractor performance evaluation, as discussed in the previous point. We note
that the Contractor Performance Appraisal Form was only found in the Townline
Bridge project file and not in any other reviewed project file.
Page 11
The contract documents consist of a form of agreement and associated documents
incorporated by reference, including the solicitation document, any and all
addendums, and the bidder‟s submission. All projects examined had a set of
contract documents.
Construction administration files were found to be generally complete. The City is
moving to also storing the files in digital format, a practice that is appropriate.
However, in some cases the digital files do not contain all the information that is
contained in the paper files.
The City explained that the assignment of the project manager is done by the
branch manager and program manager. The later generally supervises the work of
5 to 11 project managers. In many, but not all cases, the project manager is
responsible for the entire span of the project (i.e., from preliminary design to
completion of construction), but is some cases not. Generally the project manager
has relevant experience to the project.
Inspectors are assigned from a pool of City inspectors. If the volume of work or
complexity of the project warrant it, the City retains a consultant to provide the
contract administration and inspection services.
Construction inspection tasks and procedures are described in the City‟s Inspection
Manual for City Construction Projects, dated May 2003. The Inspection Manual
provides instructions on communications with the contractor and the public;
meetings; documentation requirements and forms; safety; and detailed inspection
tasks.
The Inspection Manual contains instructions for the management of change orders
and extra work orders. The Inspection Manual directs the inspector to discuss all
changes with the project manager. The procedures for the management of change
orders are not fully documented in the Inspection Manual.
The City uses a number of forms to document contemplated change orders, change
orders, extra work daily record for time and materials work, force account records.
However, they are not documented in the Inspection Manual.
Claims procedures are documented in the Inspection Manual, which instructs the
inspector to begin maintaining daily work records for the potential claim situation.
The inspector is instructed to prepare a report to the project manager on the claim
issue.
The City provides an item for all anticipated areas of work. If there is no item, then
there is a change order required. For example, in one contract the contractor had to
remove interlocking driveway stones, and an item was set up by the contract
administrator to pay for the reinstatement work. The only problem with this
procedure is that it does not have a limit on the extent of material removed, so the
restoration could require replacing a large area of existing work. In many contracts
outside of Ottawa the procedure used to pay for restoration is by lump sum, which
Page 12
generally helps ensure that the contractor does not remove more materials than
needed.
In general terms, change orders in large building projects on new buildings can be
expected to have a value ranging between 2% and 3% of the contract value on very
well coordinated projects; however, average values can be as high as 5%. On
projects that are additions to other buildings the value of change orders is expected
to be higher. For heavy construction projects, such as roads, watermains, sewers,
and bridges, acceptable values of change orders range from 5% to 10% of the
contract value. The changes are expected to be the result of site conditions.
These values were determined based on the experience of a senior architect with
more than 20 years of experience, and was used as a typical experience.
Construction Delay Claims, B. Bramble & M. Callahan, Construction Law Library,
2005, p. 5-26 states that change orders can range from -5% to +10%. The American
Institute of Architects (AIA), The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice, 1994
states that the changes could be as high as 7%. AIA Best Practice document,
Managing the Contingency Allowance, David Hart, 2007, indicates a value of 5% is
commonly used. Columbia University Facilities (http://facilities.columbia.edu)
provides a range of 5% to 10%. In addition, the acceptable range of change orders
can be supported by the usual range of contingency allowances that are provided in
civil construction projects.
Review of the change orders for the various projects examined disclosed that
several were the result of design errors and omissions. Work performed under a
change order is generally more costly than if the same work is performed under the
original tender bid. The reason for the higher cost is that the contractor will charge
full price for labour, materials, and equipment required to carry out the work (since
there is no competitive process), plus the contractor is entitled to mark up the cost
by 15% in the case of work done by the contractor or 10% for work done by a subcontractor for overhead and profit. In contrast, contractor's overhead and profit are
distributed throughout the project items in a bid.
In some instances, the cost of the entire change order was the result of consultant's
errors and omissions, but the City paid the entire cost, without requiring the
consultant to cover the additional costs. As discussed later in this report, the City
should have a policy and procedures to enable recovery of unwarranted costs when
they are the result of design errors and omissions.
On two of the projects reviewed the respective project manager classified the
change order into categories (e.g., design errors and omissions, coordination, owner
request, site conditions, and others). This procedure is important to assist in
recording the amounts that could be recovered from the consultants. Not all project
managers follow this procedure, but should.
Page 13
Recommendation 2
That the City formalize its relationship with the Ottawa Construction
Association and “Link2Build”, including ensuring that the City’s rights to review
and audit the processes are documented.
Management Response
Supply Branch will formalize the City‟s relationship with the Ottawa
Construction Association (OCA) and “Link2Build” including ensuring that the
City has the right to review and audit the documented processes, by the end of
Q4 2013.
Recommendation 3
That the City develop a policy to require project managers to formally document
design errors and omissions found during the construction supervision process.
The documentation should include the requirement for project managers to
classify change orders into categories, such as design errors and omissions,
design issues, site conditions, etc., to facilitate the recovery of costs from the
consultants.
Management Response
Management will develop a policy and/or procedures to document design errors
and omissions found during the construction supervision process by Q4 2014.
It should be noted that some categories, (i.e., site conditions) will not result in
cost recovery from consultants. (See Management Response to Recommendation
4 with regard to cost recovery).
Page 14
Table 6 summarizes the costs of change orders for the various projects, and the
portion of the cost that was due to design errors and omissions by consultants.
Details on individual change orders for each project are provided in Appendix A.
The amount of the change orders suggests that there may be issues with this matter.
This will be explored further in our 2013 Audit of Infrastructure Services.
Table 6: Contract Amounts and Change Orders
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Project Name
Original
Contract
Amount
Change
Order
Amount
Gloucester Hornets
Nest Fieldhouse
Cavanagh Bridge
$298,253
$35,097
Percentage of
Change Orders in
Relation to
Original Contract
Amount
11.8%
$751,100
167,918
22.4%
$4,110,700
$1,065,830
25.9%
$493,300
$64,562
13.1%
$6,635,000
$346,501
5.2%
$50,562
$12,457,000
$1,196,238
9.6%
$696,881
$6,327,937
$246,716
3.9%
$6,878,000
$248,026
3.6%
$9,343,824
$424,159
4.5%
$3,470,297
$595,180
17.2%
$4,478,000
$379,595
8.5%
$198,075
$14,892,000
$2,064,769
13.9%
$660,470
$11,867,325
$762,817
6.4%
$30,204
$3,505,330
$367,888
10.5%
$70,980
$1,191,778
$57,560
4.8%
Woodroffe Avenue
Watermain ISD11-5046
John Leroux Arena
(Stittsville Arena)
Goulbourn Twin Ice
Pad
Southwest Transitway
Extension
Woodroffe Watermain
ISB09-6001
Sandridge Road
Reconstruction and
Hillsdale Road
Centrepointe Theatre
Expansion
West Nepean Collector
Sewer Rehabilitation
Campeau Drive
Pumping Station
Strandherd Drive
Extension ISB09-5009
3W Feedermain Phase
1, Part 1
Cave Creek Collector
Relocation
Prince of Wales
Roundabout
TOTAL ALL
PROJECTS
$86,699,844
9.3%
Portion of the
Change Order
Paid by City
Relating to
Design Errors
$30,816
$63,292
$1,801,280
$8,022,856
Note that the percentage of the change orders due to design errors and omissions is
22% of the change order value.
Page 15
Determine whether the processes and methodologies are consistent and
compliant with all relevant policies, procedures, legislation and regulations.
The policies relevant to construction supervision comprise the procurement policies
and procurement of construction services, the Project Manager Manual, and the
Inspection Manual.
Purchasing By-law No. 50 of 2000 – A By-law of the City of Ottawa Respecting
Purchasing of Goods, Services and Construction (Purchasing By-law) has the
objective of obtaining the best value when purchasing goods, construction and
services for the City, while treating suppliers equitably. The guiding principle is
that purchases be made using a competitive process that is open, transparent and
fair to all suppliers. This audit examined the application of the by-law to the process
of acquiring construction services.
The Project Manager Manual (PMM) provides detailed guidance and instruction on
requirements for tendering of the projects. Supply Branch coordinates with the
Ottawa Construction Association to post bidding opportunities valued at more than
$50,000, and the project manager provides input during the solicitation period.
The Project Manager Manual makes provisions for the steps to be taken when the
construction administration and inspection are done by a consultant.
The PMM contains directions regarding questions during the procurement process.
As noted earlier, upon closing, the bids are reviewed for clerical errors and
compared to estimates and budget. A rationale is provided for any gross
inconsistencies in unit prices. The City advises that a prequalification process is
used in large complex projects, and that it has the right to request a firm‟s
experience in successfully completing projects of similar size and complexity.
However, the City does not always use these methods, and past performance does
not enter explicitly into the bid evaluation.
This issue is discussed further in
Section 4.1 and 4.3, as it is one of the issues raised by Councillors.
Examine nine specific projects and specific issues brought to the attention of the
Auditor General by members of Council, to determine if they are consistent with
relevant policies, procedures, legislation, and regulations.
The nine specific projects examined are summarized below, with a summary of the
findings for each one of the criteria, as listed in Section 3. The sections below
expand on each project.
Page 16
4.3.1
Transitway
The “Transitway Design Manual, October 1993” has provisions for the placement of
manholes on the Transitway. Specifically, Section B.3.5 - Catchbasin Spacing and
Grates states that surface ironwork, including manholes, valve chambers, etc. shall
not be placed on the travelled portion of the pavement. In Section B.7.1 – Utilities
the Design Manual states that Utilities (i.e., utility companies) should be
discouraged from locating their plant within the Transitway, and reiterates that no
surface ironwork shall be permitted on the travelled portion of the Transitway.
The Sewer Design Guidelines, SDG001, November 2004 in Section 6.2.2 Locations and
Spacing states that attempts should be made to avoid locating manholes in the path
of vehicle tires, subject to the location requirements of the Guidelines for the
Placement of Utilities in the Right-of-Way", which takes precedence.
Review of the provisions show that they are adequate. Spot examination of the
Transitway disclosed that its design follows these provisions.
4.3.2
For this project, the issue brought to the attention of the Auditor General was that
the project cost was high for the type of facility provided; the audit also reviewed
the procurement process.
Review of the files showed that the Gloucester Hornets Nest project consisted of the
expansion of the existing fieldhouse, installation of a new sanitary sewer (44.8 m
long), connection to the existing pumping station; and reconstruction of part of the
existing pathway. The project was designed by an architect, tendered by the City,
and was constructed by the contractor selected on the basis of the lowest bid.
The fieldhouse expansion comprised a 139.2 m2 expansion of the existing 250 m2±
existing building. The construction estimated cost prepared by the consultant
based on the design was $362,000.
The tender was carried out by Supply Branch based on tender documents prepared
by the consulting team. Examination of the file showed that the tender was carried
out using the Supply Branch procedures, and that it was posted in the Ottawa
Construction Association, which serves as an electronic advertisement for all
construction bidding opportunities issued by the City valued at more than $50,000.
Bids were received by the City from eleven contractors, ranging from $298,937 to
$581,333. The lowest bidder was selected.
Review of the cost of the building shows that the cost per square metre of building
was $2,310 ($215 per square foot). Based on average construction cost per unit area
of similar buildings, the unit cost for the building is competitive.
The review of the files showed that the project was completed within the budget
and on time. As part of the audit the change orders were reviewed in detail. In
Page 17
reviewing the change orders it is concluded that change orders totalling $30,816
were mostly necessary due to design issues. The drawings show that the parking
lot located east of the addition slopes to the site, so it would have been reasonable
to expect that surface runoff would reach the construction site. Although the soils
report indicated that the groundwater levels at the time of the investigation were
lower than the bottom of the excavations, the seasonal fluctuation in groundwater
levels should have been taken into account.
Although the work incorporated into the project was necessary, the costs of the
additional work is higher when done by change order than when it is included
from the beginning in the tender bid, because there is no competitive process at that
time. Based on the change orders in the projects reviewed, the contractor‟s
overhead and profit mark-up on any change is 10% for sub-contractors and 15% for
the general contractor; these mark-ups are added to the cost of doing the work,
which generally already includes profit margin.
The change orders addressed the need to add more step footings to the new
foundation to prevent undermining of the existing foundation; the cost of winter
protection to concrete due to groundwater issues; and the cost of a drainage system
to address surface and groundwater issues.
The specific errors and omissions comprised:
An error in the design of the footings adjacent to the existing building footings:
Although the design drawings show that the design engineer was aware that the
existing footings where higher than the footings for the new building, and thus had
the required information to know that a step would be necessary, the design
engineer did not address that the new footings could not be excavated lower than
the existing ones without undermining them. A field instruction and additional
cost was required to correct this issue.
A design error in addressing the drainage to the site: The design engineer did not
address that, as it is shown on the drawings, the drainage from the parking lot is
directed by the existing grades toward the fieldhouse extension, and as a result,
significant water problems occurred during construction.
The mistaken conclusion from the geotechnical report that the groundwater
elevation would be lower than the footing foundation elevations: Although the
geotechnical investigation found that the water table at the time of the field
investigations was below the foundation levels, it is well known that the water table
elevations fluctuate seasonally. The design did not include any provisions for
drainage of groundwater away from the footings, and had to be added during
construction.
Page 18
As will be seen in other projects reviewed, the cost of design errors and omissions
can be substantial. Based on the cost of overhead and profit mark-up (15%), as
indicated in the change orders, in this particular case the additional cost calculated
as 15% of the value of the change orders is approximately $4,000.
Recommendation 4
That the City develop a policy and procedures to be followed to recover the costs
of construction changes and original engineering costs related to the specific
component from the consultants when the additional costs are caused by design
errors or omissions.
Management Response
Management will develop a policy and/or procedures to recover the costs of
construction changes and original engineering costs related to a specific contract
component when the additional costs are caused by design errors or omissions.
This work will be completed by Q2 2014.
4.3.3
Townline Bridge Replacement, Structure 433080
Contract ISB02-7052 was executed on July 10, 2003, substantially performed on July
9, 2004, and completed on July 30, 2004. The contract work was delayed so the City
applied liquidated damages to the contractor in accordance with the contract, and
deducted them from the payments.
After the contractor was notified that liquidated damages were being assessed as a
result of delays in completion of the work, the contractor made a claim for
additional payment and for an extension of the working days, based on the premise
that he had been delayed as a result of problems with the installation of the precast
concrete girders. After review with the consulting firm responsible for the project
contract administration, the City rejected the claim.
In 2007, the contractor took legal action against the City on the basis of the claim.
This project is presently under litigation by the contractor against the City.
The contractor had worked for the City before this project but there was no clear
method to permit evaluation of their performance at the time of bids were received
and the decision made on the contract award.
The issue in this contract is whether the contractor had performed prior work for
the City and their performance was not taken into account in awarding them this
contract. The audit found that the contractor had completed a smaller culvert
replacement, in which they had made a major mistake in setting the elevations of
the culvert footings. However, the resulting problems were corrected by the
contractor at their cost and at no cost to the City.
Page 19
In the bid for the subject bridge contract, the contractor met all the bid
requirements, including provision of a bid deposit and agreement to bond, and
subsequently met all insurance and bonding requirements.
Upon completion of this contract in July 2004, it could be concluded that the
contractor completed the work satisfactorily, but had schedule problems.
4.3.4
Cavanagh Bridge (John Shaw Road), Structure 433040
Contract ISB04-7018 was awarded in April 2005, after the completion of the
Townline Bridge Replacement, discussed in Section 4.3.3. The contractor work
started on July 4, 2005, was substantially completed on January 6, 2006, and
completed on June 27, 2006.
At the start of the contract, the City discussed with the contractor the problems
associated with various deficiencies, non-performance and supervisory issues on
previous contracts carried out by them. The contractor agreed with the City that
their performance would be monitored during the execution of this contract.
The contractor‟s performance would be documented in a Contractor Rating Form
which had been developed by the former Regional Municipality of OttawaCarleton. The Form scores the performance of the contractor on several areas,
including project supervision, equipment and operators, workmanship/service,
material storage and handling, safety procedures, cooperation, public relations,
extras, cleanup, and commencement and completion. The maximum score is 100;
the minimum acceptable score is 75. Upon completion, both the City‟s project
manager and the contractor are required to sign the form.
The City advised the contractor that during or subsequent to the monitoring period,
it would decide regarding the ability of the contractor to bid on future City tenders.
At the completion of the contract, the City provided the contractor with the
Contractor Rating Form, showing that the contractor had rated 68/100. Most of the
points lost were due to a general lack of adequate supervision by the contractor,
which required more supervision by the City and its consultant. The form on file is
not signed.
In the Cavanagh Bridge contract, the contractor claimed $321,602 as extra for
several issues relating to construction of the abutments, $283,744 of the extra
payment requested related to the construction of the north abutment. The claim
was reviewed and evaluated by the consulting firm and the City and a
recommendation to pay $245,000 was made by the consulting firm. The claim was
settled for that amount.
Although the City attempted to apply a formal contractor evaluation form for
future use, it appears that this was not widely used by the City after amalgamation.
Furthermore, until recently, the City did not have a formal procedure for contractor
evaluation.
Page 20
At present, Supply Branch working with departments has developed a procedure
for recording supplier non-performance, by progressive escalation of contract
issues. The document provides general instructions for enforcing the provisions of
the contracts, including notice of default and termination of the contract. However,
the document is general and intended to be applied to all City procurement, and is
not sufficiently specific to construction.
The procedures do not include a method for recording the performance of
contractors for general use. There is no specific method for applying the results of
past performance of a contractor in previous City contracts to the selection process
of future City contracts. In fact, the method appears to be “all or nothing” in that
Supply Branch could barr a supplier from providing services to the City, but
otherwise a poorly performing contractor could continue to bid on City‟s projects at
the disadvantage of well performing contractors.
The City advises that a prequalification process is used in large complex projects,
and that the City has the right to request a firm‟s experience in successfully
completing projects of similar size and complexity. However, the City does not
always use these methods, and past performance does not enter explicitly into the
bid evaluation. As a result, contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder meeting the
bonding and insurance requirements.
The City has developed a document for reporting supplier performance during the
course of a contract; however, if the contractor completes the contract without
default, the contractor is eligible to bid in future City contracts; even if the contract
process is fraught with difficulties, delays, and extra costs caused by poor
contractor performance. The only penalty considered is if Supply Branch barrs the
contractor from bidding on future City projects. A performance evaluation method
that is taken into account in the evaluation of future bid opportunities is necessary
to distinguish between contractors who perform well from those who do not.
Past performance of contractors should be documented and a rating system
established to enable the City to take the contractor‟s past performance when the
contractor is competing for new work. The City currently has a Contractor
Performance Appraisal Form to document performance; the form is included in
Appendix X-2 of the Project Manager Manual. This form, with some modifications,
would be a good basis for contractor performance evaluation, as discussed in the
previous point. We note that the Contractor Performance Appraisal Form was
found in the project files of only one project (Townline Bridge) and was not found
in the files of any other project reviewed.
Page 21
Recommendation 5
That the City develop a system to record contractor performance in City contracts,
and that the City expand the construction bid evaluation process to include
formally the past performance of the bidder in the evaluation and award of
contracts, so that contracts are awarded on the basis of past performance,
experience, and staffing in addition to lowest cost.
Management Response
Currently, City of Ottawa construction bid solicitations include a provision
whereby a firm must have experience successfully completing projects of similar
size and complexity. Firms that are unable to demonstrate this experience are
deemed non-responsive and are not awarded the contract.
A project has been initiated within Supply Branch to develop an electronic
system to record and act on a Contractor‟s past performance. This system will be
implemented by Q4 2014. ISD will be working with Supply Branch on how
contractors‟ past performance will be affecting future award of contracts.
4.3.5
Dunrobin Road Culvert, Structure 338180
The Dunrobin Road culvert is located approximately 1.2 km north of Kinburn Side
Road. The original culvert was a 1.8 m diameter corrugated steel pipe (CSP)
culvert, which had corroded substantially. In 2007, the City arranged to rehabilitate
it by installing another culvert through the barrel of the CSP culvert to extend its
useful life. The process of installing the culvert through an existing one is called
sliplining.
On August 15, 2010, the road was overtopped at the culvert and part of the road
embankment was washed out by the flood. Investigation of the storm by the City
revealed that the rain recorded by several observers located near the site amounted
to 166 mm to 215 mm in about 10 hours. For Ontario, this amount of rain in a 10
hour period is a very unusual rainfall. The City‟s investigations indicate that the
rainfall amount exceeded the rainfall amount associated with the 100 year return
period. Investigation by the City showed that it is possible that part of the capacity
of the culvert was reduced due to accumulation of debris within the culvert. The
road was repaired in 2010.
On April 11, 2011, the road was overtopped during another storm, which caused
damage to the northbound lane and shoulder, although not to the same extent as in
the August 2010 flood. Following the flood, the road was repaired under
emergency work procedures and reopened on April 16, 2011.
Following the flood, a hydraulic analysis of the culvert showed that the lining done
in 2010 had reduced the hydraulic capacity of the culvert. The consultant
recommended that the culvert be replaced with a larger one.
Page 22
On June 24, 2011, the road was overtopped a third time in less than one year. On
this occasion the City decided to keep the road closed and to replace the culvert.
The contractor who had been called in by the City to repair the road was retained
using a time and materials basis to complete the culvert replacement. This time the
new culvert was selected on the basis of the consultant hydraulic recommendations
and the pipe that was available from the manufacturer for rapid delivery.
The issues with this project are that the initial renewal process, which concluded in
the sliplining rehabilitation in 2007, did not follow the formal procedures for
evaluation of renewal alternatives of bridges and bridge-culverts. The hydrology
and hydraulic calculations were not sufficiently thorough to permit the City to
recognize that the hydraulic capacity had been reduced, or the implications of this
reduction.
Recommendation 6
That the City ensure that for culverts where a reduction in conveyance capacity is
being considered, the renewal process includes undertaking the required
hydrology and hydraulic design.
Management Response
Since February 2011, the Asset Management Branch has modified its practice to
include a hydraulic assessment for culvert renewal options that would result in a
reduction in the hydraulic conveyance capacity.
4.3.6
King Edward Avenue Reconstruction
The project comprised reconstruction of King Edward Avenue and connecting
streets between York Street, Sussex Drive and the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge. The
work comprised relining the existing collector sanitary and storm sewers;
reconstruction of underground utilities; removal of existing road bed, excavation,
granular and hot mix asphalt; rehabilitation of the Red Path structures; demolition
of one structure and three new landscape wall structures with a stone facing.
The project was subject to an environmental assessment based on the Municipal
Class Environmental Assessment. Detailed design, tendering, award of contract
and construction proceeded based on the City‟s standard process. As part of the
process, the City required the contractor to conduct a pre-construction survey of
buildings and structures that could potentially be affected by construction activities
and vibration.
Page 23
The contractor retained a specialized firm to complete the pre-construction survey.
The limits of the pre-construction survey are determined by the contractor, and not
the City. This contracting procedure protects the City as the responsibility for
damages is the contractor‟s. The procedure is a standard procedure used by
practically all project owners, since the project owner (the City in this case) does not
have control over the contractor‟s methods and operations.
The specialized firm carried out a pre-construction survey of 100 buildings; of these,
44 were inspected both inside and outside. The remaining 56 were surveyed only
on the outside because the owner refused entry to the survey company
representatives.
The property owners of nine buildings claimed that their buildings had been
damaged as a result of construction. Of the nine buildings, four are located outside
of the pre-construction survey limits.
The property owners discussed the matter with the City‟s project manager, who
referred the matter to the contractor. The contractor referred the matter to his
insurance company. As part of the process of review of the various properties, the
property owners requested copies of the photos and videos that were taken by the
pre-construction survey company for the contractor, and were required to sign
releases and process other paperwork before being provided with the photos and
videos. Consequently, there was delay in providing the subject information. In
reviewing the files, we found that this process is not unusual and is a requirement
that the contractor and inspection companies must undertake for privacy
protection.
The issue on this project arose from the fact that the City contract documents
transfer the responsibility for damages that occur during construction to the
contractor. A number of the property owners brought the matter to the attention of
the Mayor, who had the City Solicitor review the contract documents. The City
Solicitor advised the property owners that the matter should be pursued with the
contractor.
The property owners have taken issue with the fact that the City transfers to the
contractor the entire responsibility and risk for any damages caused by
construction. The reason the City and practically all other project owners in North
America pass this responsibility is that, as previously noted, the City does not have
control or responsibility for the methods and procedures used by the contractor.
We reviewed contract documents issued by the Town of Oakville, Town of Port
Hope, City of Mississauga, Ministry of Transportation, County of Lanark, and
others. In all cases, they use the Ontario General Conditions of Contract, part of the
Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications, which transfer the responsibility for any
damages caused by the contractor to the contractor. Public Works Canada in its
contracts uses similar language.
Page 24
In construction projects, it is common to require a one year warranty period during
which the contractor is responsible for repairing any defects or deficiencies in the
project construction. The warranty period starts when the project is completed and
the City has accepted the work. We note that the one year warranty period is
common in construction contracts. During this period, the contractor is required
any defects as part of the contract, at no additional cost to the City. After the
warranty period expires, the City becomes responsible for the upkeep of the project,
as part of the normal maintenance process.
In conclusion, the City‟s contract provisions meet the current standard for handling
of damage claims. As well, the manner in which the project manager addressed
construction damage claims was correct.
4.3.7
Woodroffe Avenue Watermain Replacement
In 2007, a watermain failure on Woodroffe Avenue south of Hunt Club Road
occurred. The City carried out a non-destructive pipeline condition assessment of
the watermain from Hunt Club Road southerly to Fallowfield Road in November
2008. The condition assessment found that 18 of 558 pipes inspected (3.2%) had
broken prestressing wires. A failure risk analysis of the data collected in the
condition assessment was completed to calculate the risk of failure of the
prestressed concrete cylinder pipes and the repair priorities for the maximum
pressures. The failure risk analysis results, reported in February 2009, indicated that
of the 18 pipes with broken prestressing wires, 3 were in Repair Priority 1
(immediate action required) and 1 pipe in Repair Priority 2 (replace within 3 years).
The other 14 pipes were in priority 3 and 4 (moderate and low risk for the next 5
years.
The 1.2 m diameter watermain on Woodroffe Avenue broke on January 14, 2011
between Medhurst Drive and Hunt Club Road. This section of the watermain was
constructed in 1975 and 1976 using concrete prestressed pipe.
The section of watermain that failed in January 2011 is located north of Hunt Club
Road. It was constructed using the same type of pipe which had a similar failure in
the fall of 2007, but about 1 to 2 years earlier.
The failure risk analysis classifies the pipe segments into four Priorities, depending
on the risk of failure within one year, three to five years, and longer term, as listed
below.
Priority 1:
The maximum pressure in the line exceeds the pressure that
produces the ultimate strength with (Priority 1a) and without
(Priority 1b) the contribution of soil resistance. The failure can occur
at any time. Repair should be performed as soon as practical and in
less than 1 year.
Page 25
Priority 2:
Priority 3:
Priority 4:
The maximum pressure exceeds the minimum pressure that
produces damage limit states. The failure occurs with time as the
number of broken wires increases or when the steel cylinder
corrodes. Repair should be performed within a short time period of
about three to five years.
The maximum pressure in the line exceeds the pressure that
produces serviceability limit states, but not the damage limit states.
The failure of the pipe, if it occurs at all, is after much longer time
period than in Priority 2. The pipeline should be monitored.
The maximum pressure in the line is less than the pressure that
produces serviceability limit states. The failure of the pipe, if it
occurs at all, is after much longer time period than in Priority 3. The
pipeline should be monitored.
The report recommended that the four pipes in Repair Priorities 1 and 2 be
excavated and inspected externally to confirm the level of distress, and to replace
the pipes accordingly. We did not find a record that the additional inspection
recommended was carried out.
Based on the results of the failure risk analysis report, dated February 2009, the
Priority 1 pipes should have been replaced within one year.
The City stated that the section of pipe north of Hunt Club Road had never been
inspected prior to the failure in January 2011. Given the findings of the 2008
condition assessment and the 2009 failure risk assessment, and the fact that the
watermain north of Hunt Club Road was constructed two years earlier, using the
same materials, and placed in similar soil conditions, we reviewed whether it may
have been prudent for the City to have done, in 2009, a condition assessment of the
watermain north of Hunt Club Road at least to the limits of the original
construction contract.
After discussion with the City, it became clear that the section of pipe where the
Priority 1 pipes were located has different characteristics from the remainder of the
watermain. The section south of Hunt Club Road is at a considerably shallower
depth than the section north of Hunt Club Road, making it subject to a higher risk
of corrosion. The majority of the pipe sections with more advanced deterioration
were located in the shallower sections, suggesting that the basis for the inspection
limits were reasonable. In addition, inspections of large watermains pose important
operational constraints. On this basis, it was agreed that the limits chosen by the
City for inspection in 2008 were reasonable.
The design for the replacement of the four pipes south of Hunt Club Road in
Priority 1 and 2 started in December 2009, with original schedule of construction
start for October 2010, which is 8 months later than the Priority 1 failure risk
Page 26
indicated. The original design schedule was to have the design completed and the
tender package ready before June 2010.
At a scheduling meeting on January 12, 2010, the City decided that the project
would be postponed, but that the design should be ready for construction in case an
emergency required the work to proceed. This decision was made based on other
risks to the water system. Drinking Water Services carried out a transient analysis
(maximum water pressure analysis) in 2009 to assess the likelihood and magnitude
of transients that could affect the pipes. This decision was communicated to the
project manager by a senior watermain rehabilitation engineer on May 19, 2010,
who indicated that the delay was due to other potentially conflicting demands on
the system, that the watermain and transient pressures would be monitored by
Operations, and that the design should proceed to completion in case an emergency
repair became necessary. The City has indicated that the decision to delay the
repairs was made based on other risks to the water system that would not have
been apparent to the consultant conducting the inspection at the time.
The City indicated that an assessment was performed to determine the likelihood
and magnitude of transients through routine operations.
Following the major watermain break on January 14, 2011, the City reactivated the
project design, with the initial intention of including the failed section repairs in the
contract. However, the drawings were only at 60% completion and there were no
contract documents ready, which indicates that the design was stopped once the
City notified the project manager that the contract had been postponed. The fact
that the drawings were not ready did not impact the 2011 construction schedule,
although it could have been a concern had one of the Priority 1 pipe segments failed
before the scheduled construction.
At the time of the January 2011 watermain break, construction of the Zone 2W
(West) – Section 2C feedermain was in progress, so the City Design and
Construction explored the possibility of extending the contract to include the
watermain north of Hunt Club Road. However, Asset Management and Drinking
Water Services suggested that a condition assessment of the Woodroffe Avenue
watermain be done first to identify areas of concern. This time the assessment
extended north of Hunt Club Road, the section of watermain that had similar
characteristics as the watermain south of Hunt Club Road, in addition to the section
done in 2008 (Hunt Club Road to Fallowfield Road).
The 2008 assessment included approximately 3 km of pipe. The 2011 assessment
included 5 km of pipe, which showed three additional pipes in need of repair
including the section that failed in 2011.
On February 7, 2011, the project manager warned for the first time that the pipe
supply could take up to three months as pipe suppliers were very busy. He started
Page 27
getting prices from the suppliers who could deliver the replacement pipes within
the schedule required to expedite construction for the spring.
On February 24, 2011, Asset Management provided Design and Construction - West
with a Scoping Document based on the findings of the condition assessment. When
comparing the 2008 and 2011 conditions assessments, it was found that the number
of pipe sections with wire breaks was similar on a per km basis, but a greater
number of pipes had more severe deterioration. They did find a substantial
increase in deterioration in the prestressed concrete pipe watermain from 2008. On
the same date, the City received the pricing for the replacement pipes.
On March 1, 2011 the project manager informed the pipe supplier that the City
would proceed with buying the pipe and appurtenances required. On March 10,
2011 the project manager sent an Estimated Spending Plan Authority (E-SPA) to
Purchasing for the pipe. The project manager indicates in the email that Supply
Branch had been kept apprised all along, but review of the files found no
documentation to confirm that this was the case.
On March 16, Purchasing asked the project manager for the reason for sole sourcing
the pipe and for selecting the company. The discussion about sole sourcing the
pipe extended to March 30th, at which time the decision was to proceed with a
standard tender.
The correspondence shows that at the time of the break in January 2011, the City
repaired the broken watermain and it scheduled the required replacement of the
remaining pipes to tender the project for work in the fall of 2011. However, the
condition assessment of the watermain from David Drive to Fallowfield Road
disclosed that sections of the watermain had deteriorated substantially since 2008
and that there was similar deterioration in the segment north of Hunt Club Road.
Based on the results, the City decided to not return to service the section of
watermain from Knoxdale Road to Vaan Drive until the required watermain
replacement was completed, in order to not risk another watermain break if it was
returned to service without the repairs. On this basis, the City decided to carry out
the watermain replacement and repair work as soon as possible.
While the pipe was out of service, supply to the Barrhaven and Riverside South
service areas was being provided through a single 406 mm watermain along
Merivale Road, supplemented by in-line pumping. The temporary supply met the
demand at the time, but hydraulic modelling indicated that it would meet only 75%
of the Maximum Day Demand.
At the end of February 2011, the results of the condition assessment and the
hydraulic modelling showed that construction could not be postponed until the fall,
and it was scheduled for tendering as soon as possible.
Page 28
A number of alternative means of operation and/or repair were examined,
including repairs by leaving the pipe in place, such as sliplining or reinforcing the
pipe. The analysis concluded that the preferred solution was open cut construction
along Woodroffe. Any of the alternatives would only advance that completion by at
most two weeks and the resulting watermain condition would not be as
satisfactory.
As a result, it was necessary to impose a complete outdoor water ban in Barrhaven,
Riverside South and Manotick until completion of the project, in order to avoid
running the system dry and possible Boil Water Advisories and inability to meet
fire fighting requirements.
Recommendation 7
That the City undertake a program for inspecting its critical water transmission
mains where they are known or suspected to be exposed to corrosive
environment, and that it takes action based on the results of the inspection
findings.
Management Response
In June 2012, Environmental Services presented to Environment Committee a
report on a condition assessment program for drinking water transmission mains
(ACS2012-COS-ESD-0014). This report outlines a risk-based approach to the
inspection and management of water transmission mains.
Recommendation 8
That the City submit to Council as part of the Drinking Water Quality
Management System annual report a summary of inspections on critical water
transmission mains, including an action plan for correction of pipes identified to
be in very poor condition.
Management Response
A summary of inspections on critical water transmission mains, including an
action plan for correction of pipes identified to be in poor condition, will be
reflected in the 2013 Drinking Water Quality Management System (DWQMS)
Annual Report to be presented to Council in Q2 2014.
Page 29
Review of the change orders for this project found that they were fully documented
and were reviewed by the contract administrator and project manager. In general
terms, the change orders are necessary to expedite the project.
The “police assistance at intersections” item is a concern: Due to the level of traffic
congestion on Woodroffe Avenue, it was necessary to have point duty police on a
daily basis. The original tender did not anticipate this amount of point duty for the
project. The additional cost was $247,637, paid by variation in the tender quantities
at the tender price. The total price paid was $313,638. Review of the invoices to the
contractor for 1,140.5 hours of police service show that the cost was $214,346, based
on $188 per hour. The contractor was paid $99,292 or 46% mark-up on police cost.
The specification F-1012 allows one hour of contractor‟s organization/site
supervision for each hour of police assistance at $40 per hour. In addition, it allows
mark-up of 10% for contractor‟s overhead and 10% contractor‟s profit. It is hard to
understand how there needs to be 1 hour of contractor‟s organization and
supervision for each hour of police assistance. In our opinion, the unit price is very
generous.
Even
reducing
the
time
allowed
for
contractor‟s
organization/supervision to 1 hour per 8-hour shift would reduce the unit price to
$233 and the City would have paid $266,258, leaving a profit to the contractor of
24%. If the mark-up for contractor‟s profit is eliminated, the unit price becomes
$212 and the City would have paid $242,053, leaving a profit to the contractor of
13%. This is an operation that has no risk to the contractor, so it should not be
subject to profit.
The project manager should have negotiated the cost of this item, as it clearly was a
very significant variation in the quantities, and the general conditions of the
contract contained provisions for such eventuality. In addition, the manner in
which the item is paid provides the contractor with a profit on a service provided
by a City service to another. In fact, the profit margin is 46% even if the number of
hours in the contract is not exceeded.
Rather than include an item with unit prices, the City should provide an allowance
for the cost of the services, with only an administration markup for the contractor.
A better option would be to have Ottawa Police Service invoice the City directly for
the services.
Recommendation 9
That the City modify the payment method for services from other City services so
that they do not provide an unwarranted profit to the contractor.
Management Response
Page 30
Management will conduct a review of the requirements that will modify the
payment method for City services from other City services so that they do not
provide an unwarranted profit to the contractor. Unless specific restrictions are
identified, this will be implemented by Q2 2014.
4.3.8
John Leroux (Stittsville) Arena Upgrades
In October 2007 the City received a Structural Adequacy Review for the Arena,
which found its structural framing to be in poor condition, with some areas creating
structural concerns due to the deterioration and distress found during the
inspection. The report recommended a detailed condition survey of the roof
framing.
The design for the Arena Upgrades comprised replacing the existing roof with a
new one. The total fees paid for the design were $6,827.
The design drawings showed that the roof had variable slope, ranging from 10º
near the apex to 17.4º near the fascia. The specifications required a specific product
and model of sheet metal roofing and cladding. During the tender period, the City
upon recommendation of the consultant allowed for an equivalent roof product
based on a submission by another supplier. The City also included reinforcement
of the purlins.
It is noted that the alternative sheet metal roofing and cladding was presented to
the consultant as a product that would fit the configuration of the roof shown on
the drawings.
After the contract was awarded (Purchase Order dated March 27, 2009), the
contractor informed the City and the consultant that the roofing manufacturer
selected by the contractor (from the approved suppliers provided in the tender
documents) had advised that the specified roof replacement could not be installed
on the arena roof because of the curvature of the roof. This information was
confirmed by the supplier who had requested to be added to the specifications as
an approved equal, that is, a product that met the requirements of the project and
that is comparable in quality to the roofing originally specified.
The roofing manufacturer selected by the contractor suggested that an alternate
product manufactured by them would be suitable for the site. The City accepted
the alternative, which resulted in additional costs due to differences in colour and
additional liner. The City provided the contractor with a list of alternative
configurations and requested that they order the revised material; however, the
alternate product recommended by the roofing supplier also could not be installed
on the roof. At this stage, the contractor suggested that a membrane roofing system
would be cheaper than the metal roofing specified.
Page 31
The contractor submitted on May 15, 2009 a quotation for the contemplated change
order that provided the breakdown of credits and additional costs for the change;
the additional cost was $149,000. The additional costs were reviewed and accepted
by the City, but no formal authorization to proceed with the change was issued to
the contractor.
On May 26, 2009, the contractor advised the City that the purlin covers and interior
hat channels had been ordered on May 20, 2009, but the manufacturer estimated
delivery for June 4th or 5th. The City noted that the purlins must be fully installed
over the slab area before the summer camps start on June 22, 2009, since no interior
work over the slab would be able to proceed after that date. The contractor
responded that they could not commit to that date, and reminded the City that the
changes had not been authorized.
On June 1, 2009, the contractor submitted an alternative roof system for
consideration by the City. The contractor stated that authorization to proceed
would be required by June 3, 2009 to permit completion of the purlin covers before
June 22, 2009.
At that time, the consultant arranged to have the supplier that was originally
specified carry out measurements of the roof to determine whether their roofing
system could be installed on the building. The contractor was concerned about the
supplier using the contractor‟s scaffolding and other material to do the
measurements, and requested clarification regarding the purlin covers, as they
affected their operations. In response, the City clarified that limits of liability
during the measurements and informed the contractor that the specification was for
the original roofing system, and that the delays were caused by the contractor‟s
choice of the alternative supplier.
On June 19, 2009, the City informed the contractor that the specified roofing system
would not work on the building. Between this date and August 7, 2009, the
engineer prepared revised drawings and the contractor provided a revised
quotation.
Subsequently, the City authorized the contractor to repair the existing roof wood
truss connections (change order No. 1) and the change of roofing system to the
revised assembly (change order No. 2). However, the project did not proceed
because the arena time commitments did not allow work in the late summer. In
November 2009 the purchase order was cancelled.
On November 25, 2009, the City Legal Services advised the City that it could issue a
termination letter based on the contract, paying the contractor for reasonable costs
due to the delay. The message indicates that there were grounds for a claim against
the consultant due to the faulty specifications they provided to the City.
The contractor submitted a claim for $301,663, which was considered, high by the
City.
Page 32
On February 5, 2010, the City offered to reinstate the purchase order to the
contractor subject to several conditions regarding schedule and cost. On February
28, 2010, the City formally offered to reinstate the purchase order.
The project was completed in September 2010, using the revised roof design. The
total additional cost was $39,314 due to the change of the roof and the delays.
Analysis of the project timeline shows the following issues:
The design consultant did not carry out sufficient due diligence to confirm
that the roofing system provided in the tender documents would actually
work.
The design consultant refused to accept that the roofing system proposed
would not work until the contractor and the roofing supplier showed that
it was not a feasible system for this project.
The City considered a claim against the consultant for the additional costs
due to the change in roofing system and the delays, but decided against it.
The City received services from the consultant on another project to
compensate for the consultant costs on this project. However, the extent of
services provided is not fully documented.
4.3.9
Goulbourn Recreation Complex
The concerns raised regarding the construction of the Twin Ice Pad relate to the fact
that the project was completed in May 2012, after the initial scheduled completion
should have occurred in November 2011. In addition, some concern was expressed
regarding the quality assurance and control during construction and the warranty
on the project. Review of the contract indicates that the warranty is in place.
The construction of the Twin Ice Pad at the Goulbourn Recreation Complex
commenced in January 2011. The Chief Building Official issued a Partial
Occupancy Permit on March 29, 2012; the Final Occupancy permit has not been
issued.
The original schedule for the project in 2010 was for the contract to be completed in
January 2012. The schedule provided by the contractor during the initial stages of
the project required completion by the end of November 2011. In September 2011 it
was obvious to the contractor that the project would not be completed in
accordance with the original schedule, and a revised schedule was issued with
planned completion date of January 30, 2012.
The main reasons for the delay were the result of delays with the manufacturing,
delivery and erection of the structural steel for the project. The manufacturer
initially would not start the shop drawings until he received the signed and sealed
structural drawing issued for construction. The original schedule was for 25
working days, but the work required 75 days. In addition, the structural steel was
delivered to the site before the shop inspection required by the contract documents,
Page 33
and with defects in some of the pieces. The City had the structural steel inspected
on site and the defects were corrected by the contractor.
The City imposed on the contractor liquidated damages of $117,000 for the delays,
by deducting the sums in three payments.
Inspection and testing was carried out by the architectural firm and the structural,
mechanical, and electrical engineering firms retained by the City, which provided
general review of construction. In addition, the City retained an inspection
company to inspect the structural steel and welding, and carried out testing of
concrete and compaction in accordance to standard practice.
Review of the file showed that all deficiencies found in the building were corrected
before final payment.
The issues found on this project were mainly:
The structural steel manufacturer created an adversarial relationship from
the very beginning and did not follow the requirements of the contract.
The structural steel was delivered without the required shop inspection
and with defects in some pieces (these were corrected on site).
Recommendation 4 applies to this project
Examine a sample of ten construction projects completed in 2011 to determine if
they are consistent with relevant policies, procedures, legislation, and
regulations.
The 10 sample projects examined are summarized in Table 2, with a summary of the
findings for each one of the criteria, as listed in Section 3. The sections below
expand on each project.
4.4.1
Southwest Transitway Extension (North) Stage 1 - Fallowfield to
Berrigan
This project comprised the construction of the Southwest Transitway Extension
from Berrigan Drive to Oriska Way, Highbury Park Drive Underpass Structure, and
the Longfield Station. The contract value for the project based on the tender was
$12,457,000. The value of change orders was $1,196,238, for a total final contract
value of $13,653,238.
Several change orders in this project were the result of an error in the storm sewer
elevations shown on a record as-built drawing on file at the City. The original
design proposed that the sanitary sewer from the Longfields Station would be
constructed under an existing 2100 mm diameter storm sewer, to connect to the
proposed sanitary sewer on Longfields Drive. When the contractor exposed the
Page 34
existing storm sewer it was found to be lower than shown on the record drawings.
The resulting additional cost was $440,831.
These changes were the result of an error in the storm sewer elevations shown on a
record as-built drawing on file at the City. The original design proposed that the
sanitary sewer from the Longfields Station would be constructed under an existing
2100 mm diameter storm sewer, to connect to the proposed sanitary sewer on
Longfields Drive. When the contractor exposed the existing storm sewer it was
found to be lower than shown on the record drawings.
The issue in this project is the accuracy of the record drawings and whether the
design consultant should have checked the inverts of the storm sewer given that the
crossing was critical. It appears that the City has not investigated whether it could
recover any costs of this extra work from the respective consultants.
During construction of the Highbury Overpass it was found that the rock at the
design foundation elevation was not adequate. This finding necessitated additional
rock explorations and testing, and re-design of the footing. The total cost of the
change orders was $86,132, which could have been saved if the geotechnical
investigation had been completed thoroughly.
The City publishes Standard Tender Documents for Unit Price Contracts, which
include a typical section for the trench for sewer and services (Standard Drawing
No. S6). However, the design drawings showed a typical trench width for two
sewers instead of using the standard drawing. As a result, a change order was
issued for the additional rock excavation required. The total cost of the additional
rock excavation was $18,069.
In total, change orders for $696,881 were the result of design errors. Of this, it is
estimated that $559,174 can be classified as payments that the City made which
could have been avoided during design. There is no indication that the City
considered recovering the additional costs from the consultants (prime consultant
and geotechnical sub-consultant).
4.4.2
Woodroffe Ave. Watermain Replacement (Baseline to Navaho)
This project comprised the replacement of a watermain to accommodate the
construction of the Transitway on the west side of Woodroffe Ave. south of Baseline
Road. The contract value of the project was $6,327,937.
This project progressed without major problems. Thirteen change orders were the
result of site conditions or requirements of Drinking Water Services; the total value
of change orders was $246,716. The largest change order comprised construction of
a new valve chamber and installation of the valve as requested by Drinking Water
Services ($166,509). A credit of $50,000 was applied for early abandonment of the
old watermain.
Page 35
We found no issues with this contract.
4.4.3
Sandridge Rd (Hillsdale Rd to Merriman Ave) - Road, Watermain
& Sewer
This project comprised the reconstruction of Sandridge Road, including
replacement of the watermain and sewers between Hillsdale Road and Merriman
Avenue. The contract value of the project was $6,878,000.
This project progressed without major problems. During the project there was a
total of $248,026 in change orders that were the result of site conditions or
additional requirements of the Operations department. The largest change order
($60,499) involved the sealing of all inside joints in the 3.0 metre diameter sewer to
prevent deposition of solids and debris in the pipe joints. One change order related
to installation of fibre optic and power cables in ducts ($41,542). The remainder
change orders were the result of site conditions and requirements of Hydro Ottawa.
The Hydro Ottawa change orders were reimbursed by the utility.
We found no issues with this contract.
4.4.4 Centrepointe Theatre Expansion
This project comprised construction of the expansion to Centrepointe Theatre. The
building addition comprised 2,630 m2 (square metres), including a rehearsal studio,
dressing rooms, lounge area, volunteer room, workshop, interior loading dock and
storage rooms, plus a loading ramp, and landscaping. The total contract value was
$9,343,824.
A total of 129 change orders were issued for a total value of $424,159, including a
credit of $80,995 to close out the cash allowances ($250,000) in the contract. Some
changes were required due to design coordination. The largest modifications were
due to changes to the roof to match the existing building‟s roof, hydro substation
modifications, and specialty items that were required after substantial completion.
The value of change orders in this project constituted about 4.5% of the total project
value. On that basis, it is concluded that the value of change orders for this project
was within the accepted range.
The value of change orders resulting from omissions on the tender documents was
$63,949. Although the value is considered to be within the industry-accepted
margin of 3%, the fact that they were omissions and not coordination changes
should be taken into account.
The project was constructed without major problems and was completed within
budget and on time.
Page 36
4.4.5
The rehabilitation of the West Nepean collector sewer was undertaken under the
Federal Stimulus Funding Program for Infrastructure Projects (Stimulus Program).
It was originally scheduled to be completed before the deadline of March 2011, but
with the extension of the deadline by the federal government, the project was
completed in June 2011.
The original contract value was $3,470,297. The project was expanded and the
completion date extended when the Federal government extended the Stimulus
Program deadline. The final contract value was $3,804,902, including the value of
the additional sewer lining and change orders due to field conditions that resulted
from the extension in the project schedule to May 2011.
Of the additional cost in change orders, $132,535 was due to the work require for set
up and restoration in areas affected due to the expanded project scope and the fact
that construction extended into the spring.
A major sewer surcharge caused by the operation of the Real Time Control System
for the combined sewers resulted in additional $221,346 costs. The concern with
this event is that the sewage by-pass plans prepared by the contractor were
reviewed by the project manager and Operations. The contract documents should
have included a caution regarding operation of the Real Time Control System and
its potential effect on the West Nepean. During the review of the by-pass plan
submitted by the contractor, Operations should have noted to the contractor that
the tunnel could be flooded during a rainfall event.
Although no changes to the by-pass plans may have avoided the back-up of sewage
into the subject section of West Nepean Collector, if the contractor had been advised
of the possibility of flooding they would have had the opportunity to change
procedures to avoid damages to the lining and the by-pass setup that were caused
by the flooding.
In one of the by-pass plans the contractor assumed that the by-pass could use lands
owned by NCC. However, the City did not have an easement on those lands and
had to obtain a temporary easement from NCC. The time required to obtain the
NCC permission resulted in a delay claim by the contractor, plus the contractor
used an alternate by-pass route. This situation could have been avoided if the
contract documents had the following requirements:
The contractor shall use for by-pass only existing right-of-ways and existing
easements.
The by-pass methods are determined by the contractor, but the by-pass routes are
specified by the City.
Page 37
Use of an alternative by-pass route by the contractor is subject to approval by the
City. If the alternative is not approved by the City, the contractor shall use the
specified routes.
Recommendation 10
That the City ensure that operational constraints such as the operation of the Real
Time Control System are fully described in the contract documents and that the
risk for monitoring weather forecasts is transferred to the contractor.
Management Response
Management will work with staff in the Environmental Services department to
ensure that operational constraints are fully described in contract documents and
that the risk for monitoring weather forecasts is transferred to the contractor.
This will be built into contract standard specifications by Q2 2014.
Recommendation 11
That the City specify, in sewer renewal projects, the location for sewer by-passes
and require the contractor to use by-pass locations on existing right-of-ways or
appropriate existing easements. Sewer by-pass plans proposed by the contractor
using other locations must be at the contractor’s risk and expense, including the
consequences of delays.
Management Response
In all future sewer renewal contracts, the City will specify the location for sewer
by-passes on existing right-of-ways and appropriate easements. Should the
contractor propose other locations, the contract will specify that this will be at the
contractor‟s risk and expense, including the consequences of delays. This will be
built into contract standard specifications by Q2 2014.
4.4.6
The Campeau Drive Water Pumping Station forms part of the Zone 3 West (3W
Feedermain system. It was designed and tendered in 2008, but the prices were
higher than the budget for the project. The contractor agreed to maintain the prices
for 2009 and the City revised the budget accordingly. The original contract value
was $4,478,000, which was the lowest bid. It is notable that the second and third
lowest bids were within $255,000 of the lowest bid, which indicates that the City
obtained a reasonable price for the work.
Approximately $165,700 of additional cost was the result of changes that were
required to meet the Building Code requirements or other design issues. The final
value of the contract was $4,807,853.
Page 38
Construction of the project proceeded without a major issue until the project was
ready to commission. In fact, on October 2, 2009 the contract administrator
consultant issued a certificate of substantial performance which included payment
to the contractor for partial demobilization, commissioning, asphalt pavement,
curbs, grading, service entrance switchgear installation, soft starters and variable
frequency drive installation, lighting and receptacles, electrical distribution, wiring
of mechanical systems, control and instrumentation costs incurred by the contractor
during the billing period.
The City‟s Drinking Water Services found that the SCADA (supervisory control and
data acquisition) installed by the sub-contractor did not meet the City‟s standards.
It is noted that the sub-contractor built and installed the SCADA panel without
providing shop drawings or seeking input from Drinking Water Services for the
design. Minutes of Deficiencies Meeting No. 1 show that the Factory Acceptance
Testing for the Area Control Panel (ACP) was not completed and that the ACP was
not CSA certified. Shop drawings were submitted for the components, but not the
entire ACP. Resolution of the issues with the ACP took from April 2010 to
February 2011 (ten months).
After that, the project run into schedule difficulties, as the sub-contractor had to redesign the control system to meet the City‟s requirements, re-build it accordingly,
re-install it and then test it.
The main issues with this contract related to the schedule of construction and the
commissioning of the station due to mistakes and errors by the sub-contractor in
the design and installation of the ACP, as noted above.
Given that the contractor was able to install the wrong ACP and that the consultant
recommended payment for the work, it can be concluded that there was a gap in
the inspection process. It is reasonable to expect that the consultant should have
realized that the ACP was being installed without following the required steps, as
stipulated in the contract documents. Consequently, the consultant is partly
responsible for the delays in completion of the pumping station.
4.4.7
Strandherd Dr. (Crestway to Prince of Wales) incl. widening of
Prince of Wales
The extension of Strandherd Drive from Crestway to Prince of Wales started in
August 2009 and was completed in September 2011. The contract value was
$14,892,000. Change orders with a value of $2,064,769 were approved and paid, for
a final project value of $15,997,123.
Based on a review of the change orders, $700,175 were due to changes to items that
were missed in the design of the project. Change orders for Hydro Ottawa work
amounted to $574,184, of which $237,299 was reimbursed to the City by the Utility.
Page 39
The City paid a $16,500 change order for installation of seismographs for vibration
monitoring of construction activities. This should have been paid by the contractor
and not by the City.
The project was completed on time, within the overall budget. However, there
were a considerable number of changes due to omissions in the design.
4.4.8
3W Feedermain Link - Phase 1, Part 1 (Ottawa River Pkwy to
Moodie Drive)
The 3W Feedermain Link is a major component of the water distribution system for
the City of Ottawa. The section included in this project was started on May 20,
2010, with a contract price of $11,867,325. Change orders with a value of $762,277
were approved and paid, for a final contract value of $11,739,515. The reason why
the final cost is similar to the initial contract value is that provisional items were
estimated to cost $785,000 and only $13,815 of the provisional item budget was
spent.
The major issue with this project is that a substantial proportion ($297,161) of the
changes required during construction was due to design issues. Most of the
problems that arose during construction related to unresolved conflicts with
existing services and utilities. The largest change order, with a value of $216,000,
related to the provisions that were necessary to connect the feedermain to the
remainder of the system. The largest change order was not a design error, but was
the result of a contingency plan requested by the City at the Carlington Heights
Pumping Station, which required piping and pump modifications to ensure
uninterrupted water supply in case of failure of the existing transmission main
during the hot tap. The reason why it is considered a design issue is that the
consultant should have made provision for a contingency plan.
4.4.9
This project comprised construction of the new Cave Creek Collector, Phase 1 on
Harmer Avenue and Faraday Road. The contract was awarded on August 18, 2010.
The tender documents required that the work be substantially performed by
December 21, 2010, with completion by May 15, 2011.
The Certificate of Authorization from the Ministry of the Environment was not
received until September 14th. The work was delayed further due to work by Bell
which was scheduled to leave the site in September 2010 but did not until
November 2010. The City should review this delay to determine if the cost of
delays can be recovered from Bell.
Page 40
The contract value at the project start was $3,505,330. Change orders for the project
amount to $367,888.
The original construction plan by the contractor was to start the work on Harmer
Avenue, and to proceed with three crews. In addition, the road construction subcontractor planned to grind the asphalt and to reuse it in the contract. The City
gave the contractor the choice of postponing the work to the next spring, but the
contractor was concerned that there may not be sufficient working days in the
contract to complete before the specified completion date. Given this constraints,
the City directed the contractor to start work on Faraday Street to reduce the
number of working days that he would need in 2011. The City considered that the
June 30, 2011 completion date was important in order to avoid having the
contractors for Phases 1 and 2 working too close to each other in the summer 2011.
Approximately $332,000 of the additional costs was the result of the delay in
starting construction.
The City paid $61,930 for a box culvert sewer that had to be replaced due to the
conditions found in the field. Upon review, it was determined that there was
already an item in the contract for supply and installation of the same size culvert.
The City has explained that the section of storm sewer replaced was a cast-in-place
concrete section; replacement required demolition of a section of the existing
concrete sewer, placement of 2 sections of precast concrete box, installation of
dowels to tie in to the existing culvert, and construction of a cast-in-place concrete
section.
It is noted that this project had three project managers: the first one retired, the
second one worked on the project until a permanent position within the City
opened and the third is managing the project currently. The project management
for this project appears to have been transferred properly, as there does not appear
to be any consequence from the changes in PM.
4.4.10 Prince of Wales Roundabout Reconstruction at Central
Experimental Farm
This project comprised the reconstruction of an existing traffic circle to configure
the intersection based on a roundabout.
The Commence Work Order was issued by the City on May 18, 2011. The contract
required substantial completion by July 15, 2011 and completion of the work by
September 16, 2011. The contract value when work started was $1,191,778. The
contract was actually completed in October 2011.
Page 41
The cost of change orders was $57,560, of which $36,135 was due to the need to
change the connection of catchbasin leads to the existing storm sewer owned by
Public Works Canada. The method of connection had been agreed between Public
Works and the City, but the agreement was not provided to the designer. As a
result, the method of connection shown on the drawings and used in the field did
not meet the requirements of Public Works and Government Services Canada
(PWGSC). The City instructed the contractor to remove the connections done per
the design and to redo them based on the instructions from PWGSC.
The issue created by making the wrong connection should have been prevented
through coordination between project managers from different departments
(Infrastructure Services and Planning & Growth Management).
Recommendation 12
That the City modify the Scoping Document so that commitments made by all
departments are explicitly discussed in the document.
Management Response
Management will amend the scoping document to ensure that commitments
made by all departments are explicitly expressed. This work will be complete by
Q2 2014.
Page 42
The contractor in this project did not treat the project with the priority it required.
The City‟s project manager wrote a memorandum to file summarizing his concerns,
which included:
The contractor left his sub-contractors working for five weeks without supervision.
The contractor completed the roadwork 16 days late, but without completing the
work in the islands, the centre median, the cobblestone installation, and
landscaping.
Ten work days were lost because the contractor was absent from the site.
There is no documentation in the file or in the payment certificates to indicate that
the City charged the contractor any liquidated damages. Given the information
provided by the project manager and the lateness of completion of the project, the
project manager should have charged liquidated damages to the contractor.
Recommendation 13
That the City instruct the project managers that the liquidated damages are
provided to assist in keeping the contractors on schedule, but are not effective
unless the project manager actually charges them to the contractor.
Management Response
In Q3 2013, management issued a directive to ensure that project managers
impose liquidated damages on contractors pursuant to the City‟s Standard
Tender Documents.
5 AREAS OF POTENTIAL SAVINGS
The following areas of potential savings were identified in this audit:
Police assistance at intersections: The City should pay for police assistance at
intersections directly to Ottawa Police Service. If the average hourly cost of police
assistance is $188 and the unit price in tenders is $275 per hour, the City could save
more than $435,000 in contractor mark-up fees based on a total annual utilization of
5,000 hours.
Change order cost recovery from consultants when the changes are the result of
errors and omissions in the design: Based on the sample the average value of
change orders was 9% of contract amounts, and the average value of change orders
due to design errors and omissions was 22% of the total change orders. The value
of the sample projects ($123,776,000) was about 30% of the total value of the projects
awarded by the City in 2011 ($412.4 million). Using the average change order
values, the change orders in these contracts could amount to $37.1 million. If 22%
of these change orders are the result of design errors and omissions, this represents
$8.2 million. Even recovering only the 15% contractors‟ overhead and profit
Page 43
markup on the change orders, the savings to the City could be approximately $1.2
million.
6 CONCLUSION
The City‟s Construction Supervision process is complete and comparable to the
process and procedures used by other municipalities and the Ministry of
Transportation in Ontario.
The audit found a substantial amount of cost caused by change orders resulting
from consultants‟ errors and omissions, which the City is not recovering from the
consultants. The City is currently recovering costs resulting from changes required
by Hydro Ottawa, and should be able to recover costs for changes required by
consultants‟ errors and omissions.
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to express our appreciation for the cooperation and assistance afforded the
audit team by management.
Page 44
APPENDIX A – CHANGE ORDER TABLES
Table of Contents
Table 7 Gloucester Hornets Nest Fieldhouse ............................................................................. 46
Table 8 Cavanagh Bridge .............................................................................................................. 46
Table 9 Woodroffe Avenue Watermain ISD11-5046 ................................................................. 48
Table 10 John Leroux Arena (Stittsville Arena) ......................................................................... 50
Table 11 Goulbourn Twin Ice Pad ............................................................................................... 51
Table 12 Southwest Transitway Extension ................................................................................. 54
Table 13 Woodroffe Watermain ISB09-6001 ............................................................................... 58
Table 14 Sandridge Road Reconstruction and Hillsdale Road ................................................ 59
Table 15 Centrepointe Theatre Expansion .................................................................................. 60
Table 16 West Nepean Collector Sewer Rehabilitation............................................................. 66
Table 17 Campeau Drive Pumping Station ................................................................................ 67
Table 18 Strandherd Drive Extension ISB09-5009 ..................................................................... 69
Table 19 3W Feedermain Phase 1, Part 1 .................................................................................... 71
Table 20 Cave Creek Collector Relocation .................................................................................. 72
Table 21 Prince of Wales Roundabout ......................................................................................... 73
Page 45
Table 7 Gloucester Hornets Nest Fieldhouse
Change Description
Order
Amount Discussion
1
$1,211.87
2
3
4
5
6
7
Change EXIT signs to bilingual
signs
Change lavatory from bottom
mounted to countertop
Change in backfill material;
addition of 100 mm rigid
insulation; additional vertical
foundation wall insulation; new
sub-drain.
Addition of 4 extra step footings to
avoid undermining existing
building footing
Additional wall switch motion
sensor in storage room
Provisions for additional footing
and sub-grade frost protection
Additional door hardware, replace
existing washroom floors, replace
existing toilets, repair existing pea
traps, replace faucet
Relocate shower stall benches and
grab bars
Recovery of unspent cash
allowance
Table 8 Cavanagh Bridge
Change Description
Order
1
2
3
4
Page 46
Additional Detour Signing
Remove tree
Temporary Support MVCA
Performance Graded Hot mix HL-3
$23,595
$1,595.10
The EXIT signs are bilingual in
Ottawa. This was a design
oversight
The lavatory type was changed to
suit countertop material
This work was required due to
groundwater infiltration into the
excavation. The design did not
include a foundation drain.
Drainage from the adjacent
parking lot was not properly
allowed for in the design
The situation corrected by this
change order is evident in the
design drawings, and should have
been addressed by structural
engineer before the tender. The
design drawings show that the
new foundation is lower than the
existing; step footings should have
been provided in the design
$737.69
$3,677.28
$7,714.66
$468.00
-$3,902.84
Groundwater and surface runoff
flooded the excavation. The
source of the water was surface
runoff, and its control should have
been taken into account in the
design
These changes were made at the
request of the City to improve the
existing building facilities
These changes were made at the
request of the City to improve the
existing building facilities
Credit to the contract
Amount Discussion
$1,199.96
$2,429.68
$2085.35
$10,165.21
Required
Required
MVCA request
Table 8 Cavanagh Bridge
Change Description
Order
5
6
Asphalt Grinding
Abutment Change
Amount Discussion
$2,038.10
$150,000.00
Negotiated with contractor
Page 47
Table 9 Woodroffe Avenue Watermain ISD11-5046
Change Description
Amount Discussion
Order
1
Valve Pre-purchase
2
Joint use pole installation Sportsplex
Tracer wire substitution
Bolt plating rush
Temp 300 mm watermain by-pass
pumping system
3
4
5
$25,900.00
$4,649.38
$3,720.75
$360.00
$180,533.42
6
7
Additional spot repair at Grenfell
Spot repair for leak at Slack
8
Re-testing 300 mm bypass
9
10
11
Supply of Gorman-Rupp pump set
Connection of 300 mm by-pass to
existing
Gasket premium
12
Pipe delivery to Clyde Ave.
$2,716.64
13
Standby charges for non-located
traffic duct broken during
construction
Temporary line painting
Hunt Club traffic control measures
Overtime wage costs
Additional concrete pressure pipe
$5,545.85
14
15
16
17
18
Page 48
The water valves on this project
would have taken too long to
manufacture, so they were not
included in the tender. The
610mm valve that was needed
was purchased after construction
started based on availability. A
valve became available locally
and was purchased from the reseller. The cost is $25,900.00.
Back up copy kept by consultant
$35,672.70
$151,764.64
$5,170.10
$111,798.00
$4,651.31
$798.82
$6,982.47
$7,704.60
$18,995.95
$6,598.28
Site communication memo #3 on
file. Back up copy kept by
consultant. Installed to provide
additional water supply to area
For the spot repair at Slack Rd., a
leak developed in the adjacent
existing watermain. The cost to
repair using time and material is
$151,764.64
Not clear why the City needs to
pay for re-test
Connections were included in
original request for prices
Gaskets needed to be purchased
from secondary supplier
The contractor was asked to
deliver the old 1200 mm
watermain to the City depot
Site condition
Site condition
Required
To meet schedule requirements
Site condition
Not issued
Change Description
Amount Discussion
Order
19
20
21
22
23
Additional police assistance
Additional grading and paving Slack Rd. spot repair
Additional grinding -Woodroffe
Additional grading and compaction –
Woodroffe, including compaction
and fine grading
Rental of standby pumps
$247,637.50
$1,656.00
Reasonable
Required
$13,735.20
For temporary 300 mm diameter
watermain
161 m of 1.8 m wide sidewalk.
The sidewalk on the east side of
Woodroffe adjacent to the
Sportsplex was in very poor
condition prior to this
construction project. At various
locations, it was necessary to
repair various panels after
watermain crossings were
complete. It became very
difficult to replace these panels,
considering that numerous
adjacent panels were in need of
replacement as well. The cost for
this was $22,540.00
Required for temporary water
supply
Required for temporary water
supply
Required
Sidewalk along frontage of
Sportsplex
25
Final paving 300 mm trench at Hunt
Club
Pump rental cost
$8,769.61
Compression band and grout at
Knoxdale/Woodroffe
$7,567.60
27
Back-up invoices only
$180,395.68
Paid by variation in tender
quantities at tender prices.
1140.50- 240 = 900.5 hours at
$275.00 per hour. However, cost
is only $158.17 per hour, so the
contractor gets 74% mark-up on
police cost
Reasonable
$13,243.53
$29,588.60
24
26
Due to the level of traffic
congestion on Woodroffe, it was
necessary to have point duty
police on a daily basis. The
original tender did not anticipate
this amount of point duty for the
project. The cost for this is
$247,637.50
$22,540.00
$2,385.60
Page 49
Change Description
Amount Discussion
Order
28
29
Copper wervice at 1757 Woodroffe
Ave.
Additional 600 mm watermain work
$10,561.29
30
Additional 600 mm watermain work
$10,886.43
31
Reinstate road cuts at school, Vaan
Drive
Road cut reinstatement front of
school
Additional paving at school
Removal of temporary 300 mm
watermain
Additional 600 mm watermain
installation at Hunt Club
32
33
34
35
$3,008.38
Reasonable
$8,313.39
The original design only
included a very short section of
610 mm watermain on Hunt
Club. After the decision was
made to install the booster pump
and bypass piping, the required
length of 610 mm watermain to
replace increased significantly.
The cost for this is $96,926.60
Temporary watermain
$5,494.79
Temporary watermain
$4,689.31
$26,711.32
Temporary watermain
Temporary watermain
$75,478.88
Table 10 John Leroux Arena (Stittsville Arena)
Change Description
Amount Discussion
Order
1
Page 50
Wood truss connections
$23,650.00
This was an addition to the contract
based on structural
recommendations
Table 10 John Leroux Arena (Stittsville Arena)
Change Description
Amount Discussion
Order
2
Change roof system to SAR
$24,700.00
3
Fencing and scaffolding rental
July – August 2009
$14,614.15
4
Pickup and delivery of purlins
$1,597.83
Table 11 Goulbourn Twin Ice Pad
Change Description
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The roofing system had to be
changed because the originally
specified system would not fit the
shape of the arena roof.
This was due to the fact that the
originally specified roofing would
not work
Required due to structural
requirements
Amount Discussion
CR 1 - CCN·1 Additional tile work
in main lobby of GRC
CR 2-CCN·2 Temporary relocation
of fire exit door
CR 3 - CCN·3 Snow removal off the
site
CR 4· CCN-4 Provide electrical
revisions per SKE·CCNE
CR 6· CCN·5 Replace CT·2 in
public WR with rubber floor
CR 7 -CCN·6 Changing 150mm
storm service to 200mm
CR 9 - CCN·8 Delete floor drain &
pipe in refrig header trench
CR 8· CCN·7 Del of conc. curb ,
sidewalk demolition & reinstate
CR 11 - CCN·9 Changes to louvers
dimensions
CR 10· CCN-l0 New cooling tower
support
$43,297.50
Owner request
$14,931.70
Exit in existing building require
during construction
Project done in winter, originally
scheduled for spring
CR 12 -Remove hoarding around
existing cooling lower
CR 18r 4· CCN-32 OH door &
Recpt. for drink fountain
CR 13 - Drainage of sludge from
existing melt pit
CR 15 SI·25 Revise slab reinforcing
details in refrig. plant
CR-17 Disassembly of CIMCO
refrig. equip.
CR·23· Testing of rock anchors
$1,822.75
Refrigeration equipment
upgraded to remove need for full
time operator; new cooling tower
required
Site condition
$4,863.54
Design issue
$1,550.96
Site condition
$1,999.50
Site condition
$5,000.00
Site condition
$9,179.70
Additional work
$10,589.40
$1,509.02
$4,615.71
$713.23
To allow public to walk on skates
in washroom
Site condition
-$468.00
$1,924.49
Site condition
$1,242.00
Site condition
$12,285.72
Page 51
Change Description
Order
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Page 52
CR·19· CCN-13 Rerouting of exist.
sprinkler test drain
CR-25 CCN 17 Heating & HVAC
revisions in refrig. room
CR·24r 1 - Surveying of anchor
bolts
CR-26 CCN·18 Elect. connect. for
domestic WH pump
CR-27 _ SI·29 new speaker location
& conduit
CR·21 CCN·15 fire alarm connect
for low pressure swit
CR·28 - Provision of curb extension
CR-38 -CCN 26, CCN M 006
Relocate exist. unit heater
CR-42 Roofing cost Savings
(option #3)
CR 33r 1- CCN 25 Insulation for
header trench
CR·29 CCN-20 Seismic for cooling
lower struct. Frame
CR-31 CCN·22 Header trench &
slab revision
CR-32 -CCN-23 2 new indirect
DWH in refrig. rm
Amount Discussion
$2,914.00
Site condition
$2,708.25
Site condition
$2,473.00
Owner requirement
$1,537.99
$6,506.41
Owner request
$7,394.58
Design issue
$1,058.00
$6,414.95
Site condition
Site condition
-$10,110.00
$8,949.69
Site condition
$11,144.01
Site condition
$4,617.30
Site condition
$39,780.30
CR-30 -CCO-21 In fill part of wall at
roof (grid A ,I8)
$1,999.84
CR-44r 1 -CCN-28 Elect. For
relocation of unit heater
CR-49 -ECN-9 Add fire alarm
release for shutter door
CR-53 -CCN·36 Elect. for new
sprinkler valve
CR-40 SI·36 ECN-7 Revised light
fixture layout CR
CR-47· CCN·31 Power to exterior
building signage
CR-52 -CA Rectification for exterior
signage
CR 59 CCN # 38 Removal of
existing flooring
CR # 57, CCN # 39 New millwork
& painting in staff room
$494.44
Energy management. Added two
heater tanks from recovered heat
of domestic water
Design issue
Not issued
Site condition
$5,727.69
Design issue
$9,841.41
Site condition
$5,311.05
Design issue
$17,229.81
$1,067.00
Each logo and letter had own
circuit, missed by design
Design issue. Modification of cash
allowance
Owner request
$5,766.48
Owner request
$2,465.10
Not issued
CR 61 CCN#41
$757.25
Change Description
Order
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
1000
Amount Discussion
Not issued
Supply only barrier-free rails
CR # 58 CCN # 37, two additional
fire dampers
CR # 62 new coach benches
CR # 63 R 1, deletion of infill panel
at east end of rink
CR # 64, insulation of steel deck
under dehumidifiers
CR # 65, CCN " 33. water testing &
chemical feed
CR " 67, lower exit signs
$1,771.00
$638.00
CR # 41 rev 2 S 1# 30 Lateral
support to block walls
CR # SO, CCn # 35, new masonry at
2 RWL enclosures
CR # 56 rev 1 cn # 34 steel column
enclosure & ceramic
CR 73 rev 1 dedicated outlet in staff
room for telecom hub
CR 74 r 1 en # 45 emerg exit
removal exit sign & disconnect
CR # 76 removal of coat hooks in
change rooms
CR # 77 dedicated outlet for FA
monitoring system
CR # 78 modify detail lJA604
bypass structural elements
CR 54 rev I provide paint 10
plywood al grid 11
CR # CR # 71 spring hinges for
doors in change rooms
CR # 75 removal of rigid insulation
at grid line A & aa
CR # 80 rooftop firewall revisions
CR #- 81 additional elect outlet in
lobby for TV
CR # 82 reconfigure electrical
conduit for goal light
CR # 75 rev 1 Tectum panels in
front of signage wiring
Additional excavation West parking
lot part 1
$2,750.00
Exit Signs had to be lowered to
comply with Building Code,
authority having jurisdiction.
Design issue
Design issue
$2,844.60
Site condition
$990.00
$249.70
Owner request
$793.40
Design issue
$855.37
$1,563.54
$1,326.40
$727.91
Owner request
$598.17
Site condition
$423.50
Owner request
$1,000.63
Owner request
$897.00
Design issue
$1,650.00
Owner request
$713.75
Owner request
$6,785.39
$11,664.79
$323.53
$532.93
$7,996.03
$48,300.00
Design issue
Design issue
Owner request
Site condition
Owner request
Organic material removal
Page 53
Table 12 Southwest Transitway Extension
Change Description
Order
Amount Discussion
1
Top rail fencing
2
Longfield station servicing sanitary
connection
$253,824.34
3
4
5
Pumping station MH and forcemain
Strip topsoil at Highbury Park
Highbury drain valve handwheel in
V/C
Robert Exc. Stub Locate, adjust to
300 mm
Watermain shutdown and
remobilize Highbury Park
Access Road Highbury
Lintel East Station
Rock investigation footings
Highbury
$55,435.00
$13,362.04
$423.99
$2,092.16
$11,040.00
$2,200.00
$2,020.00
$3,095.04
16
Revision plumbing drain
Bell duct
Epoxy coated reinforcement
Duct in structure
35 MPa concrete for retaining walls
Highbury
Transitway rock for sewer
17
Northwest wall insulation part 1
$19,200.00
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 54
$5,334.78
$834.44
$2,330.40
$2,326.31
$5,070.00
$12,356.98
$39,636.41
Design issue. OC Transpo
request
Designed service as gravity
sewer, under existing sewer. Asbuilt (record) drawings of existing
sewer provided by City showed
connection possible. Actual sewer
elevation was different. By-pass
required
See No. 2
Additional stripping required
No City staff available, contractor
operated valve
Site condition
Site condition
Site condition
Design omission
Limited rock coring done during
design. This relates to
contractor‟s cost during
investigation done during
construction. Inspector
commented that this work should
be invoiced to consultant. No
evidence on boreholes drilled that
the rock quality in localized areas
would be so poor
Missed in design
Request by utility
Correction of design by
consultant
Standard width too narrow for
sewer diameter. Design issue.
Unless the sewer diameter was
changed, there should be no need
for this extra, as the City‟s
standard has minimum width
requirements. Site conditions due
to poor rock quality required line
drilling to control trench
Requested by geotechnical
engineer
Change Description
Order
Amount Discussion
18
Per CCN No. 1
19
Paddles and bollards CCN No. 6
$33,280.00
20
Provide and install trap seal primer
$16,270.00
21
22
SCU field device credit
Architectural louvers
-$5,513.00
$8,468.00
23
Elevator column supports
$8,800.00
24
SW modifications
$1,800.00
25
Retaining wall extension insulation
$26,700.00
26
Forming mass concrete west
abutment
$12,696.68
27
Forming mass concrete east
abutment
$15,179.21
28
Rodent grates
29
Pedestrian pathway fence, regrade
ditch, adjust MH
Modification structural steel roof
decking
Pathway walls and footing
modifications
Modify roof deck
Reduction in roof edge insulation
30
31
32
33
34
35
$129,642.00
$3,422.77
Design issue. TSSA requirement
to address site issues regarding
elevator shaft conflicts
Required by approval agency
TSSA. Design issue. Unforeseen
circumstances regarding type of
elevator selected not compatible
with design of supports assumed
Design issue. Site conditions
regarding conflict with existing
sewer
Design issue. Site conditions due
to frost susceptible soil
Related to CO 10– resulting from
over excavation of rock due to
poor quality rock
Related to CO 10– resulting from
over excavation of rock due to
poor quality rock
Design issue. Requested by City
maintenance
Site condition
$1,260.00
Site condition
$396.00
$24,499.99
Modifications requested by
Hydro Ottawa
$2,823.00
-$9,439.00
Highbury RSS wall support
$27,190.00
36
Security at Longfield station
$27,005.75
37
38
Roof deck Longfield station
New stone block wall west
abutment Highbury structure
$4,725.00
$13,967.73
Related to by-pass pumping per
CO 2
OC Transpo requested for
accessibility
Design issue. Plumbing code
requirement addition for Building
Services
Not issued
Design issue. Site condition
requiring more dowels and
concrete
Security issues at station – OC
Transpo requested
To prevent erosion and rock
stability issues
Page 55
Change Description
Order
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Additional electrical work lobby
and interior underpass
Block wall elevator shaft
New steel door frame janitor sink
room
Install guiderail channel anchors
parapet wall
Place aluminum plate thick curved
roof station int.
Install additional nursery stock
Provide adequate sewer trench
width, due to discrepancy contract
drawings H003 H004
Relocation condenser unit west
station
Adjust location of reglets
Northwest wall additional
insulation
Amount Discussion
$1,242.00
$4,000.00
$661.00
$3,120.00
$8,330.00
$1,612.80
$18,068.72
$1,157.00
$19,321.00
Additional steel Longfield station
$1,599.87
50
51
Baseboard heaters elevator cabinet
Supply & install damaged glass
panel (vandalism)
Supply & install 6 pair Bell cable for
OC Transpo elevator
communications
Additional milling on Berrigan
Install galvanized railing along
pathway
New junction box for pumping
station in Longfield Stn
Extend hand rail in east and west
stations
$1,486.00
$3,457.00
Install galvanized bollards filling
station, Longfield stn.
Install beacon lights elevators east
and west station
Install addit. panels for underpass
skylight
Install additional access doors
elevator closet
Redesign railing east and west
stations
Installation of culvert ends
$2,615.00
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Page 56
City request for future guiderail
installation preparation
OC Transpo request
Design issue. City standard
specifies minimum width on each
side of the pipe 300 mm
$1,010.00
49
52
Design issue. TSSA safety
request.
OC Transpo request
$2,640.00
Design issue. Requested by
geotechnical due to poor site
condition.
Design issue. Clarification during
shop drawing review.
OC Transpo request
$1,800.00
$3,992.50
$1,930.00
Design issue, related to CO No. 3
$1,840.00
Design issue– Building Services
inspection code requirement
request
Design issue TSSA request for
approval requirement
$4,845.00
$6,671.00
$1,177.00
$5,575.00
$609.78
Change Description
Order
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Supply and install welded pipe oil
tank as per CCN#28
Supply & install aluminum channel
protector for AC conduit
Supply & Install modified fascia
and soffit
Cost of key locknut at operating
doors Longfield Stn.
Provide extra Bell conduit service
from Longfield to panel box
Extra guide rails fixed, rotating Longfield Stn
Additional roof modifications at SW
Transitway East Stn.
Fuel pit modifications, Longfield
Stn.
Provide elevator glass film per
TSSA
Stainless steel handrail revisions,
SW Transitway for Building permit
occupancy
Additional rental pedestrian fencing
for ped. traffic during construction
Ditching and new catchbasin beside
Longfield stn. pathway
Provide additional 1" water service
between utility rooms
Amount Discussion
$9,365.00
$3,004.00
$1,393.00
$3,021.00
$2,481.00
$7,560.00
$7,976.00
$2,576.00
$6,395.00
$23,551.00
$17,987.10
$4,190.00
Additional TSSA inspection
Additional handrail revisions
$1,230.00
$7,943.00
78
Additional AECON supervision
March 2011
Excavation for installation of subdrain & pathway relocation
Additional landscaping
Anti-graffiti coating
Temporary Hydro service
$7,015.00
80
81
82
83
84
85
Lower existing street light pole on
pathway by Longfield Station
Wood privacy fence Highbury
Ditching, misc. work at Highbury
overpass
Building Services requirement
(design issue)
$1,534.52
76
77
79
Design issue. TSSA requirement
Original design required 1.5”
copper, but did not perform
properly
Building Services requirement
(design issue)
$41,954.90
$3,163.00
$45,942.50
$30,872.90
Permanent power supply not
available for use for reasons
beyond contractor‟s control
$1,987.20
$10,139.40
$23,437.50
Requested by councillor
Includes work required due to
footing re-design
Page 57
Change Description
Order
Amount Discussion
86
Additional doors and safety film
elevator
87
Additional galv. curb steel for east
tower
Revision to credit for control units
Re-install handrail with plexiglass
north side station west tower
Re-instatement pathway at station
Caulking of joints at Longfield
station and Transitway lanes
Waterproofing kits for light fixtures
Roof scupper drains not shown on
mechanical dwgs
$1,559.00
Install two relays at Longfield
Station
Supply and install 4" welded pipe
for oil tank
$6,500.00
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Table 13 Woodroffe Watermain ISB09-6001
Change Description
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Page 58
Replace single gasketed joints with
double gasketed joints using
standard NSF61 certified gasket
Provide 3810 x 3810 valve chamber,
new pressure pipe elements, install
1220 mm valve supplied by City
including corrosion protection, etc.
Deletion of major item C011 (AFO
cable)
Performance bond amendment
Realign temporary pathway at
Navaho
Credit for early abandonment of
watermain
Geotextile fabric – 1300 m2 at $3.00
per m2
Line painting Baseline Rd,
Constellation to Woodroffe
Removal of JU foundation at
Woodroffe and Navaho
Repair 3x100 ducts at
Woodroffe/Navaho
$10,668.00
Doors not shown on door
schedule – design issue. TSSA
requirement
Request by OC Transpo
$4,763.00
$8,575.00
$5,713.42
$2,760.00
$5,599.00
$3,500.00
Design issue coordination of subtrade issue – shown on
architectural but not on
mechanical drawings
$9,365.00
Amount Discussion
$39,220.77
$166,509.00
Required due to change in
NSF61 standard from tender to
construction
Request by Water Services
$9,775.00
$7,780.80
To account for increased
contract value
$1,343.90
-$50,000.00
Watermain to be abandoned in
next contract
$3,900.00
$1,945.62
$1,593.00
$6,142.50
Table 13 Woodroffe Watermain ISB09-6001
Change Description
Order
11
12
13
Relocation of smart channel
Greylith concrete cold weather
hoarding
Three-rail handrail at Baseline
pathway loop $56 m at $223.86
Amount Discussion
$35,580.38
$10,613.54
Due to schedule change
$12,311.75
Table 14 Sandridge Road Reconstruction and Hillsdale Road
Change Description
Amount Discussion
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Authorization for changes in
methodology proposed by the
contractor
Additional streetlight cable on
Hillsdale Rd. and HDD under
Hillsdale Bridge
Additional sewer cleaning, tree
relocations, removal of concrete
debris, credit for drop pipe removal
Additional MH to adjust alignment
of 900 mm dia. storm sewer on
Hillsdale
Authorization for changes in
methodology proposed by the
contractor
Additional work 300 mm pipe
instead of 250 mm
Install fibre optic and power cables
in ducts
Seal inside joints of 3.0 m dia. pipe
Hydrovac excavation of weeping
tiles at 220 Sandridge
Concrete encasement – fibre optic,
power ducts
Remove and dispose abandoned
MH
Reconfigure opening of STM MH to
accommodate actual field elev. of
existing sewer
Remove tree stumps left by Forestry
Dept.
Remove tree stumps left by Forestry
Dept.
$0.00
$5,749.35
$4,353.10
$6,122.41
$0.00
$2,252.13
$41,542.45
$60,499.15
$1,697.42
Request by Operations
$620.12
$1,588.87
Site condition
$3,242.46
Site condition
$2,726.45
Site condition
$2,400.00
Site condition
Page 59
Table 14 Sandridge Road Reconstruction and Hillsdale Road
Change Description
Amount Discussion
Order
15
Modifications to CP-100 & CP-101
per Environmental Services Branch
direction
$6,300.00
16
17
Hydro Ottawa connection fee
Increase depth of CP-100 pane; extra
cable; NEMA4 box for fibre optic
panel
Additional MH COM204C and
12.2m 1050 dia. pipe
Reimburse owner 250 Sandridge Rd.
Invisible fence damage
Two year extended warranty and
maintenance on tree planting
Sprinkler repair 290 Sandridge Rd.
$3,067.94
$1,684.80
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Install 500 mm dia. culvert at CP-101
Relocate UPS in CP-100 from
SCADA panel to power panel
Install concrete bus pad at
Birch/Sandridge intersection
Additional electrical work SI 38
Electrical work SI 36 and RFI dated
2010 12 06
Install vent pipe on forcemain outlet
COM 203
Street light relocation
Sprinkler repairs 204, 240 Sandridge
Road
Asphalt gutter and sod removal
Additional shrubs planting CP-100
and CP-101
Temporary asphalt ramping
Sprinkler repairs at 26, 204, 290, 300
Sandridge
Reconstruction of Hillsdale Rd.
claim
Table 15 Centrepointe Theatre Expansion
Change Description
Order
1
2
3
Page 60
Structural modifications
Site revisions to Hydro substation
Modifications to North entrance
Design issue. Modifications to
the control panels requested by
Operations after contract award
for level control in the storage
pipe
$27,350.84
$258.00
Site condition (sprinklers on
right-of-way)
$5,325.00
636.52
right-of-way)
$5,407.34
$3,435.43
$3,784.00
$4,438.38
$1,717.80
$5,652.11
$23,150.20
$2,997.61
right-of-way)
$4,454.78
$1,367.20
$5,325.00
$2,378.96
right-of-way)
$6,500.00
Amount Discussion
$1,611.00
$14,604.00
$1,426.00
Request by authority
Required by authority
Owner request
Change Description
Order
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Electrical modifications west
vestibule
Emergency exit light, temporary exit
Structural revisions and clarifications
Revisions to overhead doors (shop
drawing coord.)
Landscaping revisions (owner
request)
Added two beams omitted in design
Revisions to 2 light fixtures for
coordination
Additional misc. metal cast in, fixed
guard rail
Weeping tile pipe
Panel T1A and T1B Control room –
delete handrail, add wall, install
panels in new wall
Tunnel isolation (fastening styrofoam
to concrete, install poly)
Install smoke detectors at elevator
doors, relocated smoke detectors
Revisions to coordinate openings
Increase concrete class to 35 MPa and
add superplasticizer
Overhead fire shutters revisions,
powder coat door T027.1.1, upgrade
door T134.4
Revise underground plumbing
Fire alarm connection to fire shutter
doors T26.2 T26.3 T134.4
Revise incoming electrical service
ductbank
Studio theatre cable trench revisions
Control revisions
Audio mute system control
Tennant flow meters (flow and mass
flow meters)
Waterproofing existing electrical
tunnel
Temporary exit from existing
building
Amount Discussion
$0.00
$6,559.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,760.00
$403.00
-$867.00
$805.00
Site condition, coordination
Owner request
Omission on tender documents
(coordination during shop
drawing review)
$417.00
$6,250.00
$1,717.90
$3,500.00
$2,185.00
$5,607.00
$2,538.00
$6,728.00
Site condition, but seems design
issue
Site condition, for acoustic
separation
$2,998.00
Site condition, but was due to
the number of conduits
$3,873.00
$8,471.00
Site condition
Site condition, coordination?
$0.00
$1,612.00
$878.00
$2,790.00
$23,540.00
Client request
Client request
Audio system coordination
$4,300.00
$10,764.00
Site condition
Page 61
Change Description
Order
32
33
Amount Discussion
34
35
36
Cancelled
Revisions to power for theatre seating
system
Piping offsets around ductwork
Cancelled
Revisions to hardware schedule
37
Reinstatement of existing site services
$9,466.00
38
Upgrade sump pit frame and cover
$4,043.00
39
Exterior masonry veneer colour
change
Lighting revisions
Furring on concrete wall
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Page 62
Cancelled
Additional framing for masonry
veneer anchors
Delete railing
Utility and HVAC revisions: Delete
radiant panels, install baseboard
heaters
Flooring within T111 and T113.1
Cancelled
Theatre HVAC revisions (acoustically
lined ductwork, diffusers, silencers)
Revisions to return air transfer
Grease interceptor
Coordination with Public Art
installation
Cancelled
Plywood backing for wall mounted
shelves
Electrical revisions (GFI breaker and
add‟l fixtures)
Cancelled
Revision to pipe rail
Re-roofing of existing roof area
Electrical revision
$1,269.00
$3,081.00
Site condition
$2,390.00
Coordination, client request,
clarification
Site condition. Includes work
required to accommodate the
new location of storm sewer.\
Coordination with shop
drawings. Detail provided in the
design drawings modified at
owner‟s request due to concern
that it would not support loads
Revised to match the colour of
the existing building
Client request
Negotiated by consultant to hide
mechanical and electrical
services
$29,930.00
$4,860.00
$2,445.72
$2,136.00
Site condition
-$1,068.00
$1,541.00
Specified twice
Coordination
$1,136.00
$25,979.00
$1,244.00
$1,432.00
$10,087.00
(co-ordination between actual
truss dimensions and mechanical
duct sizes)
Client request
$1,095.00
Owner request
$5,784.00
Owner request
$0.00
$28,090.00
$1,993.00
Owner request
Existing conditions
Owner request
Change Description
Order
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Amount Discussion
Revised ice machine location
Textured paint surface studio arcade
walls
Revisions to ST-1 Limestone, ST-4
Granite
Revision to door T028.1 from 914mm
to 1070mm
Revisions to walls in T049 and T050,
and ceiling in T116.1. Add ceramic
tile backer board, water resistant
gypsum board; change ceiling to lay
Cancelled
Millwork in copy room T116.1
Plywood backing for wall mounted
shelves
Elevator pit ladder
Smart board meeting room T115
Light fixture Type 2, T028, T121, T123
$1,295.00
$2,184.00
Duct smoke detector – RTU2
Confirmation of wall construction
and glazed screen GS024.1 at
production coordinator office T024
Fire damper to duct in T132
Additional floor material
$0.00
$4,908.00
Additional steel lintel over door
T027.1
Deletion of millwork Item M64
Gypsum board ceiling modifications
Mold abatement at existing stage
flooring; replacement of existing
damage flooring
A/V receptacles and breakers at stage
level
Diffuser layout room T116
Fire damper EF-1 at wall penetration
Revise signage breakers
Return air slots in washroom T049
Installation of appliances
Cancelled
Additional radiator covers and
window sills
Additional stain samples
$4,385.00
-$300.00
Owner request
Architect‟s direction
$3,113.00
Owner request
$4,309.00
Site condition
$897.00
$1,100.00
Owner request
Owner request
$1,155.00
$2,333.00
$1,042.00
$1,186.00
$1,430.00
-$385.00
$2,851.00
$48,828.00
$602.00
$4,370.00
$1,554.00
$240.00
$343.00
$633.00
$13,579.00
$165.00
Owner request
Site condition, stems required to
lower fixtures below mechanical
services
Owner request
Variance between tender and
construction drawings
Site condition for new opening
cut into existing theatre wall
Owner request
Error in tender documents
Site condition
Owner request
Site condition
Site condition
Owner request
Coordination (missed in design)
Owner request
Taken from cash allowance
Contractor claim
Coordination with artist work
Page 63
Change Description
Order
Amount Discussion
87
Range hood colour change (white to
black)
88
89
Revised bulkhead in office area T116
Kitchen sink change (6” deep to 10”
deep)
Cancelled
Raise three data jacks and receptacles
in copy room T116-1 to 1200 mm
above floor level
T113 fire dampers
$1,836.00
$822.00
Site condition (two hours plus
difference in material price of
$193.00)
Owner request
Health inspector request
$1,037.00
Owner request
$1,926.00
$816.00
112
Light fixture revisions
Cancelled
Door sweeps for kitchen
Landscaping revisions
Kitchen sink change from 6” deep to
8” deep
Supervision work re J. Rigging after
hours work
Sensing power house relay panel
Mobile hot food station – power
outlet revisions
Revisions to loading dock sprinkler
Cancelled
Temporary heating exterior masonry
work (based on claim settlement
agreement City-Contractor)
Door closer T129.1
Revised cable pass-through fire stop
assembly
Wood source supply materials
security area bench and lobby tables
Electrical coordination – exit lights
and retractable seating
Lockset revision door T117.1 for
coordination with security contractor
Loading bay additional wall bollard
Owner supply of damaged
tackboards (credit)
Garage doors T26.2, T26.3 and misc.
plugs in existing theatre
Studio SPK1-1 electrical connections
Omission on tender documents,
but was due to building code
issues in existing building
Site conditions
113
Control room 120V outlets
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
Page 64
$449.00
$302.00
-$927.00
$670.00
Ministry of Health requirements
$1,656.00
Ministry of Health requirements
$1,377.00
$537.00
$1,082.00
$19,541.50
$496.00
$2,127.00
$3,385.00
$3,685.00
$2,153.00
$977.00
$-800.00
$8,532.00
$543.00
$1,400.00
Coordination with studio sound
contractor
Coordination with studio sound
contractor
Change Description
Order
Amount Discussion
114
Additional fire alarm devices
$7,676.00
115
116
Electrical power in room T047
Coat check mill work – provide full
length gable supports.
Additional wood supply
Cancelled
HVAC in room T024
Electrical modifications to studio
Feminine hygiene receptacles in
washrooms T034-1, T034-2, T043-2
and T044-2
Cancelled
Delete insulation from loading dock
ceiling
Cancelled
Paint colour revisions
Platform for gallery fixed double
seating
Wood railing and supports corridor D
stair
Cancelled
Cancelled
Provision of 24x24 carpet tiles to suit
control room T143
Cancelled
Masonry repairs to existing building
Revise hardware operation to door
T042.2
Revision to washroom speaker
connections. Revision to tension grid
light fixture
Close out cash allowances (security,
cabling/IT, exterior signs, locks)
Cancelled
Revision to stair material detail
8/A5.01
Demolition and new construction for
new wall opening
Reinstate concrete block wall at
temporary exit
Platform for back row of gallery fixed
seating
$2,956.00
$1,542.00
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
Rubber base stair D
Additional cable pass-through (fire
stop)
$558.00
$5,688.00
$3,940.00
$430.00
Building official request for
occupancy permit
Site condition
Owner request
-$2,500.00
Owner request
$1,341.00
$2,278.00
Owner request
Site condition
$1,571.00
Building official request
$2,794.00
Owner/ user request
$2,930.00
$397.00
Site condition
Owner request
$2,171.00
Owner request
-$80,995.00
$1,340.00
$18,598.00
$3,000.00
$3,049.00
$0.00
$607.00
Building official request
Owner request. Structural
requirements, site condition
Site condition
Owner request. Site condition.
Design did not allow clear view
from back row seats
Authority requested tested
assembly
Page 65
Change Description
Order
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
47A
68A
108A
Amount Discussion
Modifications to studio pipe rails and
headers
Landscaping revisions
Cancelled
Cancelled
Cancelled
Extend wall finish to underside of
slab after ceiling removed in loading
bay
Replacement of hardwood & new
paint on existing wood stage
Plumbing T125
$19,540.00
Owner request
$3,850.00
Owner request
$2,438.00
Owner request
$14,081.0
Site condition
Smart board meeting room T115
Additional panic set added to doors
T0352 T127.1
-$1,628.00
$1,199.00
-$1,535.00
Credit for cancelled CO 47
(reissued as CO59)
Credit for missing blocking
Table 16 West Nepean Collector Sewer Rehabilitation
Change Description
Amount Discussion
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Page 66
Remove and seal water intrusion per
claim#3
Clean up for watermain break #1
Clean up for watermain break #2
Excavation of driveways for by-pass
hoses
Installation of a pre-liner SL36 to
SL39
NCC delay/alternative by-pass per
claim 1
Fuel price adjustment for April 2011
By-pass of sewer at Trolly station
Grout sealing active groundwater
infiltration
Installation of pre-liner SL 35
Installation of pre-liner SL40 to SL43
Sweeper for NCC Pathway
Granular pad for staging area
Lincoln Heights
Pumping groundwater infiltration in
MH
Work beyond March: Resin, By-Pass
- April
Add. Combo cleaning - site
conditions
$7,204.40
Site condition
$3,515.17
$8,564.52
$9,848.23
Site condition
Site condition
Site condition
$21,117.33
Contract extension
$85,114.92
$8,849.38
$10,458.10
$3,443.88
Contract extension
$6,153.36
$24,789.17
$506.00
$25,129.48
Contract extension
Contract extension
Contract extension
$0.00
$51,806.56
Contract extension
$0.00
Table 16 West Nepean Collector Sewer Rehabilitation
Change Description
Amount Discussion
Order
17
18
19
20
21
To remove all granular A and
geotextile material used at Lincoln
Heights staging area
Provide additional sewer CCTV and
cleaning following surcharge event
of April 11, 2011
Additional payment for increase in
sewer by-pass capacity and for cost
increase of resin for work after
March 31, 2011
Reinstate landscaping along NCC
Pathway Poulin Ave. to Ottawa
River Pkwy
To provide payment for delays and
additional work incurred due to the
sewer surcharge event that occurred
on April 10-11, 2011
Table 17 Campeau Drive Pumping Station
Change Description
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Additional masonry reinf., footing
projection and foam (CCD 1)
Curtain wall framing mods
Cost premium for floor drains (SI
No. 4)
Delete the supply of municipal
water meter (CCD 6)
Concrete pilasters, surface mount
rap-ties (CCD 3)
Membrane waterproofing on
foundation walls
Spool pieces to connect 900 and 400
mm watermains
Cost premium for roof colour and
24 gauge metal
Contract extension
Winter heating provision to carry
out CCD 3 work
Costs for the selected vision panel
glazing colour
Piping restraints and slab
thickening
Modifications to the generator
lugging panel
Supply additional masonry dowels
$6,800.00
Contract extension
$17,904.00
Paid under Item B-0001 (1492 m
x $12.00/m)
$57,749.41
Paid by variation in tender
quantities for applicable work
$24,880.00
Revised tender prices or
negotiated unit prices
$221,345.81
Operations missed potential
problem during review of bypass
plan
Amount Discussion
$52,264.26
Design issue
$2,934.00
$444.00
-$668.00
$34,000.10
Partly design issue
$7,414.05
Design issue
$18,833.21
Design issue
$5,567.94
$6,122.03
Design issue
$2,125.00
$79,441.52
Design issue
$843.75
$906.00
Page 67
Table 17 Campeau Drive Pumping Station
Change Description
Order
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Page 68
New louver and modify ductwork
at EF-01
Additional ball valve flushing
connections
Provide 4-20 mA outputs for flow
meters
Modified installation of ceiling fans
Modify main breaker installation,
per Hydro Ottawa
Modify discharge process piping at
pumps 2 and 3
Modifications to Hydro service
installation
Provide final wiring terminations
on City's behalf
Paint overhead door
Provide isolation flanges on 400mm
bypass piping
Additional trench grating
Modifications to grating support at
discharge header pit
Additional flashing at louver
opening
Install additional 24 VDC power
supply and power bar
Modifications to ACP-100
Inspection for high lift pump
Amount Discussion
$562.50
$3,549.11
$1,687.50
$2,784.10
$988.86
Not design error but rather
additional works that Hydro
Ottawa were to undertake, done
by contractor instead. No
additional cost to City
$1,000.00
$72,649.42
Not design error but rather
additional works that Hydro
Ottawa were to undertake, done
by contractor instead. No
additional cost to City
$16,205.29
$1,100.00
$3,856.25
$6,250.00
$2,777.30
$705.00
$1,630.97
$22,165.15
$31,455.36
Construction inspection issue
Required due to pump seizure
Table 18 Strandherd Drive Extension ISB09-5009
Change
Description
Order
1
2
Drop pipe and delay costs
Encountered rock during sewer
installation
Rock at CB25, 26 & 27
Extra work on Transitway ramp
3
4
5
150mm water main on Transitway
station
Rock excavation
6
7
9
Culverts & retaining walls along west
ditch on POW
Modifications to Transitway ramp after
issued for construction dwg were issued
450mm concrete pipe 100-D
10
Install drop pipe on MH409
8
11
12
A
12
C
12
D
12
E
12
F
12
12
13
13
14
G
H
A
B
A
14
B
14
C
15
16
A
16
B
1200mm concrete pipe 100-D (storm)
3 X 100mm concrete encased ducts for
Hydro Ottawa
6 X 100mm concrete encased Hydro duct
bank
9 X 100mm concrete encased Hydro duct
bank
12 X 100mm concrete encased Hydro
duct
16 X 100mm concrete encased Hydro
ducts
Two way precast Hydro MH
Pole ;aterals (curb forms)
Culvert extension of SN118790
SN118795 culvert replacement
Conc. encased Bell ducts - Transitway
service
Conc. encased Hydro ducts - Transitway
service
MH4013, Transformer pad & Bollards Transitway Service
Expanded polystyrene insulation 75 mm
HI-40
Concrete pole bases as DWG LID0003 in
Transitway ramp
Pole bases in Transitway as per DWG
attached to Change Order
Amount Discussion
$9,960.95
$25,185.28
$10,498.11
$114,743.00
$74,910.00
$95,521.81
$115,739.91
$29,003.76
Design issue
Design issue
Design issue
Required by OC
Transpo
Required by OC
Transpo
Required by OC
Transpo
Hydro Ottawa
$18,096.00
$43,958.70
Adjacent development
modifications
modifications
modifications
Design issue
Hydro Ottawa
$25,488.00
Hydro Ottawa
$22,910.00
Hydro Ottawa
$96,945.00
Hydro Ottawa
$2,583.00
Hydro Ottawa
$1,947.00
$8,754.89
$28,000.00
$3,630.00
$16,000.00
$23,307.00
$9,075.00
Hydro Ottawa
Hydro Ottawa
Requested by AM
Requested by AM
Bell Canada
$79,700.00
Hydro Ottawa
$23,750.00
Hydro Ottawa
$43,601.52
$20,160.00
Hydro Ottawa
$29,600.00
Page 69
Change
Description
Order
Amount Discussion
17
A
1.8 m high block retaining wall
$80,620.00
17
B
1.4 m high block retaining wall
$136,640.00
17
C
Supply and install erosion control mat
(North American Green P300)
Concrete pavement
Redi-rock retaining wall 1030 mm block
series. 210m2 surface area
2 X 1200 mm dia. CSP 2.8 m wall
thickness
Supply and install 8.2 m base mounted
aluminum pole with decorative coach
style luminaire
Supply & install pre-cast curb for winter
shut down
Supply & install grate for 1200 mm dia.
culvert ends
Design errors for MH209 & MH204
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Page 70
A
B
C
Temporary roadway protection box
culvert from DIMH219
Supply and install conduit from hand
holes to bus platform
1.2 m high black chain link fence
1.5 m high black chain link fence
Three rail handrail as per City of Ottawa
DWG F-1
Supply & install energy attenuator
Delay costs due to a late redesign of road
alignment
Uncover water service and aid in
blanking it
Repair 3-cable guide rail damaged by car
accident
Additional features traffic signals
requested
Adjust MH, HH, VC alternate item price
to F-0021
$21,958.80
$148,521.60
$156,000.00
$50,269.45
Design issue. This is an
issue that should have
been addressed during
detail design
Design issue. This is an
issue that should have
been addressed during
detail design
Field conditions
OC Transpo request
Design issue, related to
CO 17A and B
Site conditions
$10,890.00
$94,216.49
$7,768.00
$21,279.55
$5,168.67
Design issue. the
change order states that
the manhole could not
be installed as designed
Site conditions due to
POW realignment
$9,743.12
$22,577.00
$12,049.80
$3,717.00
$21,940.00
$1,826.32
Site safety issue
Site safety issue
Site safety issue
Redesign of Prince of
Wales required by
property owner
$6,749.68
$2,635.06
$6,817.86
$83,400.00
Design issue
Change
Description
Order
34
Amount Discussion
$53,913.60
37
Supply and install aluminum hand
railing on top of barrier wall
Strengthen 900 X 1200 box culvert due to
extra depth change
Supply and install cast-in-place head
walls on culvert ends
Vibration monitoring
38
Miscellaneous traffic requirements
$11,522.18
39
Open Strandherd up Early
$37,181.45
40
Replace cable between transformer and
disconnect in Transitway
Supply and install MH frame and covers
Supply and install hand hole frame and
covers
Steel grate for STM MH 209
35
36
41
41
42
A
B
Table 19 3W Feedermain Phase 1, Part 1
Change Description
Order
1
2
3
Bell duct
Holy Acres Road widening
Thrust block reinforcing
4
Rework of feedermain with san.
conflict
TVS concrete reinforcing
St. 4 + 075 investigation of
forcemain
St. 3 + 968 existing service conflict
Work at station 2 + 840
St. 3 + 925 unknown service
disruption
St. 1 + 270 unknown water service
break
Relocate 6 wm at 3 + 968 "
Bell duct conflict
Hydrant lead fix 1 + 825
Bridge footing support
Repair kit
Curb work 3 + 450 and 4 + 125
Additional closure Richmond
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
$16,323.46
$35,061.40
$16,500.00
$4,478.10
Redesign of Prince of
Wales
Hydro Ottawa
Should not be paid by
City
Rideau River Bridge not
open yet necessitated
temporary traffic control
Traffic control measures
to permit early opening
Design issue. Incorrect
cable specified
$2,528.00
$5,664.00
$3,740.00
Design issue related to
CO No. 24
Amount Discussion
$4,957.76
$6,793.51
$3,000.00
$10,707.47
Utility conflict
Change in City scope and
requirements
Sanitary Sewer conflict
$11,768.28
$5,978.46
$1,714.70
$1,152.43
$25,600.38
Service locate conflict
$4,976.82
$30,204.20
$1,168.91
$22,650.15
$1,943.19
$67,500.00
$4,521.80
$60,262.79
Design issue
Watermain break
Schedule requirements
Page 71
Table 19 3W Feedermain Phase 1, Part 1
Change Description
Order
19R
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Carlington Heights reservoir hot
tap
$216,000.00
Repairs to existing 16 at 2 + 725 "
Downtime at Boyee
Downtime at station 2 + 880
Repairs to 406 wm Kempster
Sidewalk & curb replacement
Pavement restoration (middle lane)
Expose TVS station
Delay of hot tap
Pavement restoration (north lane
and sidewalk)
Hydrovac TVS chamber
Cleaning of TVS chamber
Patch road section at ORP
NCC tree plantings
$7,339.80
$2,196.89
$16,245.06
$14,383.73
$169,451.00
$13,583.94
$12,737.06
$5,727.10
$20,024.34
Table 20 Cave Creek Collector Relocation
Change Description
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 72
Amount Discussion
Delay costs
Changes to issued for construction
drawings from tender
Site preparation for elections day
Additional CCTV and cleaning
Temporary hard surface for winter
shut-down
Storm box culvert replacement
Installation of PVC bypass Sewer at
SA18
Installation of additional pedestrian
fencing on Harmer
Downtime due to 400 mm valve
problem: Byron & Harmer
New storm manhole drop structure
at Faraday and Clarendon
Downtime due to watermain valve
problem at Byron & Harmer
Cutting of new west inlet hole at
manhole SA7
JCD Plugs at SA7 (2x750mm)
New 1500 mm manhole SA8 to
replace 1800 mm MH
2 more CIPP liners
Required to ensure that the system
would be operational after closing
the valves
Watermain break
Watermain break
$7,915.84
$4,796.00
$1,845.02
$5,670.00
Amount Discussion
$50,000.00
$54,107.04
$6,301.47
$6,107.00
$90,585.00
$61,930.00
$22,909.25
$2,095.50
$3,693.26
$24,925.00
$10,313.61
$2,954.24
$1,150.00
$9,050.00
$8,400.00
Table 20 Cave Creek Collector Relocation
Change Description
Order
16
17
18
Fisher Park School Wheelchair
Ramp Handrailing
Additional MH section on IPCres
Flagstone reinstatement at 147
Faraday
Table 21 Prince of Wales Roundabout
Change Description
Order
1
2
3
4
5
Reconnect catch basins to storm
sewer
Police assistance at intersection
Break out and remove foundation
Excavate 450 mm storm sewer to
connect oversize pipe
Misc. materials for connection
Amount Discussion
$6,534.00
$4,223.64
$2,609.04
Amount Discussion
$36,135.50
Caused by miscommunication of
PWGSC requirements within City
$11,547.04
$1,329.60
$6,478.29
$2,069.97
Page 73

audit of construction supervision - Documents

Transcription

Documents pareils

Atlantic City

kim davenport

Date: 23 au 27 juin 2014

North America Color Coded Map - Mexico (2-06)

Vous parlez franglais? - Western Michigan University

How Frogs, rosbiF and Co Could beCoMe Closer Friends ?

Les Amis du boulevard Saint

Guy Cournoyer est membre du Barreau du Québec de 1987 à 2007

Appartement à vendre Voreppe Home city

Atlantic City - Expression Voyages