Northern Light
Superstar
Apparently Crosslinx is suing the province for 134M because of Covid. I must confess, I blame the Premier for many things............but this might seem a stretch.
|
|
|
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
robmausser
Senior Member
This is a desperate attempt for the private sector to not lose money on this project, it won't succeed. Public gain.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
You must have forgotten this:
Metrolinx reaches settlement with builders of Crosstown LRT
The transit agency said Thursday it will dip into contingency funds to compensate the builders of the light rail line for “reasonable” claims, ensuring the project will be completed on time.
www.thestar.com
AoD
rbt
Senior Member
I presume this is an attempt to take a bite out of Verster's statement that Yonge station must be completed on the pre-covid schedule or pay penalties.
Vendors considering a bid on Ontario Line and GO Expansion will be watching this pretty closely. I'm guessing in Alliance style tenders that change of law impacting cost will be a risk Metrolinx is forced to absorb.
Last edited:
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
At least with no interchange it would not add to the crowding on Line 1.
robmausser
Senior Member
You must have forgotten this:
Metrolinx reaches settlement with builders of Crosstown LRT
The transit agency said Thursday it will dip into contingency funds to compensate the builders of the light rail line for “reasonable” claims, ensuring the project will be completed on time.
AoD
These are reasonable claims though. This one will go nowhere. You cant sue for act-of-god situations. Even if you argue that the provinces action because of an act-of-god situation was not adequate, its a very weak argument.
This only shows how desperate they are.
DopeyFish
Active Member
viruses don't typically fall under act of god... it's largely for environmental disasters.
Steve X
Senior Member
The only valid suing point is how the province handle the pandemic. Being a new thing to all governments, I would say everyone is a newbie and is pretty hard to do the best thing.
Pretty much the only thing ML can be proved wrong is forcing the opening date on them. ML is saying they were already behind and money was given to them to speed up. Now is up to the court to look at the evidence and say is the date reasonable.
This kinda thing also will set the stage for future P3 projects and how much they will bid or the willingness to bid. The risk is clearly too high.
afransen
Senior Member
I think a lot of contracts invoked the force majeure clause due to COVID--it certainly happened with projects I am involved in, due to inability to travel freely to complete on-site work.
JasonParis
Moderator
Why don't we just build full crossovers at every station to allow for maximum flexibility? It's cost, right?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Well the pre-COVID schedule dictates that the line must be finished by 2021. Putting Yonge aside, do we even consider that a realistic timeline for the rest of the project? End of 2021 is just 14 months away, and several stations are still holes in the ground. I feel like mid-2022 is a more realistic goal at this point (guesstimating here)
crs1026
Superstar
All large contracts have a claims process where the contractor asks for relief from things that went amiss, invoices for scope changes, and recoups the cost of mitigating extraordinary unforeseens, etc. Normally that happens quietly and even if there are disputes, they get arbitrated in private.
What gets a little silly is when the contract is so rigid and the in service date has such political ramification that the parties have to wrangle these things out in public with little room to compromise.
ML lost a lot of credibility when it took Bombardier to court alleging non-performance on LRT production, when ML’s real objective was to downsize its order. Now we have ML saying it will enforce the Crosstown contract to the letter.
Nobody really expects a project this big to come in on the exact promise date. I have not heard of any single large booboo by the contractor, and the known glitches (eg the discovery work at Yonge-Eglinton) are definitely unforeseens. ML ought to accept some of that risk.
All I can say is, be careful what you ask for. We want the P3 vendors to have good engineering departments, not good legal departments.
- Paul
What gets a little silly is when the contract is so rigid and the in service date has such political ramification that the parties have to wrangle these things out in public with little room to compromise.
ML lost a lot of credibility when it took Bombardier to court alleging non-performance on LRT production, when ML’s real objective was to downsize its order. Now we have ML saying it will enforce the Crosstown contract to the letter.
Nobody really expects a project this big to come in on the exact promise date. I have not heard of any single large booboo by the contractor, and the known glitches (eg the discovery work at Yonge-Eglinton) are definitely unforeseens. ML ought to accept some of that risk.
All I can say is, be careful what you ask for. We want the P3 vendors to have good engineering departments, not good legal departments.
- Paul
Last edited:
Steve X
Senior Member
ML really doesn't know what they're doing is one of the biggest risk. They keep changing their minds.
It's not like they had much to begin with. The Presto mess tells it all.