Servicing
13 sites scored 70% and above on Servicing, but the two shortlisted sites are the ones that are most interesting in this review.
This is because servicing costs used in the scoring for the two shortlisted sites are at odds with the Engineer's report. On top of that, there is doubt as to whether the County Road 42 hydro feeder has the capability to absorb the load required for a hospital.
That's a big deal!
But first, let’s start with a review of the scores:
This is because servicing costs used in the scoring for the two shortlisted sites are at odds with the Engineer's report. On top of that, there is doubt as to whether the County Road 42 hydro feeder has the capability to absorb the load required for a hospital.
That's a big deal!
But first, let’s start with a review of the scores:
Let’s examine the evaluation criteria:
The Site should have capacity to support the Facility. Electrical, water, sewer, gas and other services should be in place now or by the time construction is scheduled to start. There are special considerations for plumbing and electrical systems in health care facilities. Access to two feeds for electrical and water should be available to the Site.
The Site should have capacity to support the Facility. Electrical, water, sewer, gas and other services should be in place now or by the time construction is scheduled to start. There are special considerations for plumbing and electrical systems in health care facilities. Access to two feeds for electrical and water should be available to the Site.
The following are the scale factors:
- 100%: established services
- 70%: good potential to service
- 50%: fair potential to service
- 30%: minimal potential to service
- 10%: poor potential to service
All 13 of the sites above were considered by the Site Selection Committee to have either good potential to have two electrical and two water feeds to the site, or they were already established. So far so good.
But not so fast.
This week, a letter surfaced that was written by the Consulting Engineer for sites N (CR42) and V (GEM), Rick Spencer.
This is what he had to say about the GEM Site with regard to servicing - "with good redundancy" comes up a lot, which easily explains GEM's perfect score:
But not so fast.
This week, a letter surfaced that was written by the Consulting Engineer for sites N (CR42) and V (GEM), Rick Spencer.
This is what he had to say about the GEM Site with regard to servicing - "with good redundancy" comes up a lot, which easily explains GEM's perfect score:
Mr. Spencer had the following to say about the CR42 site:
We don't know about you, but here at CAMPP, we're wondering how this equates to "good potential to service"?
The vendors themselves didn't seem that committed to it. They certainly didn't deny that their site lacks power. Look at what they wrote in their RFP:
The vendors themselves didn't seem that committed to it. They certainly didn't deny that their site lacks power. Look at what they wrote in their RFP:
At the press conference at Windsor Regional Hospital on January 6, 2016, where the information about the additional costs was explained, we were told the additional site servicing costs were as follows:
GEM: $925,400
County Road 42 (O'Keefe): $1,137,500
Difference: $212,100
This was also reported in the Windsor Star as follows: "The 42 site came in with a price of $100,000 an acre, plus extra costs estimated at $1.14 million, while the GEM site was asking $136,000 an acre plus $925,400 in extra costs. The price comparison was based on the per-acre cost for 50 acres at each site, meaning the 42 cost was $6.1 million, while GEM would cost $7.7 million."
Mr Spencer had a different take on this. In fact:
GEM: $925,400
County Road 42 (O'Keefe): $1,137,500
Difference: $212,100
This was also reported in the Windsor Star as follows: "The 42 site came in with a price of $100,000 an acre, plus extra costs estimated at $1.14 million, while the GEM site was asking $136,000 an acre plus $925,400 in extra costs. The price comparison was based on the per-acre cost for 50 acres at each site, meaning the 42 cost was $6.1 million, while GEM would cost $7.7 million."
Mr Spencer had a different take on this. In fact:
Did you see that? Mr. Spencer wrote that the additional costs (the watermain for the CR42 site and a pump station for the GEM site) would be $580,000.
He also said this number did not include the costs for upgrading the hydro capacity.
According to him, the actual additional direct servicing costs were therefore greater than what was used in the site selection calculations.
We believe this discrepancy needs to be explained. Evidently Mr. Spencer would like some answers too. Consulting Engineers don't like the calculations in their reports to be trifled with.
And furthermore - and perhaps most importantly - if it is unknown if the Hydro One feeder can provide enough service to the site, did anybody investigate any further? Did they obtain information to indicate how much it would cost to supply the required service, and if so, where was this accounted for? Are taxpayers going to be billed for this instead?
So to summarize, we would like to know:
1. Why was the difference in site servicing costs in the scoring stated as $212k, given that the Consulting Engineer estimated it at $580k?
2. What is the cost to upgrade the Hydro One feeder to bring it up to capacity for a hospital, and why was this not included in the site selection cost calculations?
He also said this number did not include the costs for upgrading the hydro capacity.
According to him, the actual additional direct servicing costs were therefore greater than what was used in the site selection calculations.
We believe this discrepancy needs to be explained. Evidently Mr. Spencer would like some answers too. Consulting Engineers don't like the calculations in their reports to be trifled with.
And furthermore - and perhaps most importantly - if it is unknown if the Hydro One feeder can provide enough service to the site, did anybody investigate any further? Did they obtain information to indicate how much it would cost to supply the required service, and if so, where was this accounted for? Are taxpayers going to be billed for this instead?
So to summarize, we would like to know:
1. Why was the difference in site servicing costs in the scoring stated as $212k, given that the Consulting Engineer estimated it at $580k?
2. What is the cost to upgrade the Hydro One feeder to bring it up to capacity for a hospital, and why was this not included in the site selection cost calculations?
