Government Operations Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[Norman Glouberman]

I think that's a difficult question. It's difficult to find another example. Here we're dealing with a building built in the 1860s, bearing masonry that's undergone a number of renovations. It has a lot of asbestos in it. With the present policy, we're trying to bring it up to seismic regulations, seismic requirements.

The combination of all of this, together with the requirements for a parliamentary building, means it's very complex. The masonry is in extremely poor condition. We can't just put up standard scaffolding. For the north towers we've had to put up major structures in order to hold them up while we do the work.

[Julia Gersovitz]

I think one must also acknowledge the post-9/11 landscape and the security concerns that come with that.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Right.

How would you describe the current state of the building? Do you feel it's necessary that we undertake this work now?

[Norman Glouberman]

We felt that many years ago. When we did our first building assessment back in 1995, we found certain problems. When we came back in 2003-04, we were quite surprised at the amount of deterioration that had happened since that time. The project was stopped in 1999 for a period of time, and we felt that during that time the deterioration was tremendous. And it's continuing. That's why we have the scaffolding, etc., around the building right now.

[Julia Gersovitz]

I think any of you who have been walking on the Hill of course would also note the security measures to prevent stones from falling, whether it's the wrapping of parts of the towers or the security fence around the perimeter to prevent people from being too close to the building.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.

Mr. Martin, for eight minutes, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming. I wasn't quite clear, originally, on why you were invited to come, and I'm still not entirely clear, but I would like to ask you a question of a general nature.

Have you ever felt threatened--in a commercial way or in a personal way, you or your family--in association with any project that you've ever been involved with in the building industry?

[Julia Gersovitz]

We have not been threatened with specifics for...for what you are looking at now.

You know, that's a very general question, Mr. Martin. It puts into review our entire lives, as you've asked it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, obviously we're most interested in the current undertaking of the restoration of the Parliament buildings.

Is there any aspect of your work associated with this building that gives you any unease, or has there been any indication that your ability to continue working may be threatened, or has your personal safety in any way ever been threatened, associated with the parliamentary Hill?

[Norman Glouberman]

This is a project we're very proud to be part of. We've been working on it for 15 years. I think we've developed a love of the building, and I don't think there's anything that's threatened us in terms of the building or continuing to work on the building.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Fair enough.

Perhaps I can ask you some questions about the process of the letters of interest that get sent out. I realize it's Public Works that obviously does the tendering and the hiring, etc., but I ask you this given your knowledge and background of the building industry.

The pre-qualification process that you recommended and that was conducted by Public Works was amended at a late date. Some of us feel that the amendments may have been the opportunity or the mechanism, if there was any political interference, that may have given an advantage to one contractor over another.

The one amendment specifically that I'd like to ask you about is amendment three. I don't expect you to know those by heart, but it's the one that deletes whole sections of the pre-qualification document--sections 3.5 to 3.10, effectively--and adds a sentence. It begins as follows:

If a contractor decides to pre-qualify both as a General Contractor and Subcontractor, they are permitted to list the same projects to pre-qualify both as a General Contractor and Subcontractor providing the projects meet the mandatory requirements.

Then this sentence was added:

In doing so, he doesn’t need to pre-qualify a second subtrade for which he has specialization in, waiving the corresponding requirement defined below in sections 5 to 10 of this section.

Does that mean anything to you?

[Julia Gersovitz]

We were not involved in that part of the process.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

But would you consider that a substantive amendment? As an example, the other two amendments were about things like changing one paragraph because it's more correct, in a French-English translation issue, while another one was cancelling the pre-job site visit for the pre-qualification. They're relatively minor.

This one actually deletes about 50% of the whole invitation to tender, in that you do not have to have a decorative ironwork restoration subcontractor list and you don't have to have an element carver subcontractor. I would say that the general contractors who would have had to pre-qualify their subcontractors would be at a disadvantage, and the one contractor who had all those subcontractors in-house would have an advantage.

That change was made in the final days leading up to the closing. Do you have any professional insights?

[Norman Glouberman]

We were not part of that process. We were not asked, and to be honest, I'm not aware of everything that was deleted at that time. I know now that there was a change and I knew after the pre-qualification was done that there was a change, but I don't know the details of the change, so I can't really comment.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I do understand that. I come from a building background as well and I know that as the architect it wouldn't be that you're involved with it. The timing of it was suspect to us, in that they extended the closing by one week, and then on the original closing date they moved what we consider to be this massive amendment that really changed the game dramatically.

On the other bidders, you probably worked with PCL, as I have, and EllisDon, as I have, and Fuller Construction, arguably the best contractors in North America. I don't know who the fourth was. Do you remember? There were five people pre-qualified.

[Julia Gersovitz]

I'm sure somebody has the....

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This is the most prestigious restoration project of its type in North America, and maybe in the world currently--

[Norman Glouberman]

We certainly think so.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, and it attracted arguably the best contractors in the world, with international reputations. The guy who we argue bought his way onto this pre-qualification list low-bidded it by $2 million on a $9-million project. If I were the project manager, I would take a low bid like that and throw it in the garbage. I would probably take the highest and the lowest and chuck them and pick one in the middle range that had a reasonable expectation of being able to complete the job. Nobody can leave $2 million on the table on a $9-million project.

[Norman Glouberman]

This was not our decision. I mean....

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No, I understand.

Bobby Watt took over. Have you worked with Bobby Watt as a contractor in the past?

[Julia Gersovitz]

Our firm has worked with Bobby Watt on the restoration of the front facade of Rideau Hall.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Did you see his press conference last week?

[Julia Gersovitz]

I read about it in the paper.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

He feels that he's being pushed off the job, squeezed off the job. The trustee in the bankruptcy that's managing the money is not forwarding money so he can pay wages to his people. He's being forced into bankruptcy because he can't meet his payments.