member b u l l e t i n - home - ontario road builders ... keeping ontario moving member b u l l e t...

orba.org Keeping Ontario Moving

MEMBER B U L L E T I N

May 4, 2015 Bulletin # 51-15

MTO Golf Tournament

With golf season now in full swing, we are pleased to inform you of one of the industry’s many excellent tournaments. The MTO Reconnection Charity Golf Tournament is an opportunity for industry stakeholders to reconnect with current and former MTO staff, while raising funds for a worthwhile charity. In keeping with tradition, the tournament supports the Canadian Spinal Research Organization (CSRO) and as a participant, donor or sponsor, you will support the CSRO and its mission to find a cure for paralysis caused by spinal cord injuries. Tournament: MTO Reconnection Charity Golf Tournament

Date: Monday, June 15th

Location: Cardinal Golf Club

Time: 10:00 am shotgun start

Registration: https://secure.e2rm.com/registrant/startup.aspx?eventid=166336

Sponsorship: Click here Please contact Bill Neilson at 1-800-361-4004, ext. 227 for additional details.

http://orba.org/system/documents/documents/3696/original/MTO_Reconnection_Golf_Brochure_2015.pdf?1430747851

https://secure.e2rm.com/registrant/startup.aspx?eventid=166336

http://orba.org/system/documents/documents/3697/original/Sponsorship_MTO_2015.pdf?1430747886



May 4, 2015 Bulletin # 52-15

2015 OPSS 127 Schedule

MTO has now published its OPS 127 – Schedule of Rental Rates for Construction Equipment, Including Model and Specification Reference (Rental Rates) for 2015. The document has been attached for your reference (and can also be found at the following link). The rates noted cover equipment rental rate compensation for work on a Time and Material Basis. The calculated rate represents the cost of owning and operating the equipment and is made up of direct and indirect costs such as fuel, oil, lubrication, field repairs, overhaul, depreciation, financing, storage, insurance, overhead, and profit. The rental rates in the schedule are hourly, unless otherwise stated, and do not include the cost of the operator. When a piece of equipment falls in between listed categories, with respect to weight or capacity, the lower rental rate shall apply. For subsection 127.02.09, Hoisting Equipment, when the size of the equipment falls between the increments shown, the rental rate is to be determined by a straight-line interpolation and rounded to the nearest five cents. ORBA’s Transportation Committee worked closely with the MTO in the compiling and review of this year’s rates. ORBA would like to extend its gratitude to the committee members for their time and effort on this initiative. The rental rates are reviewed annual; therefore, if ORBA members note any errors, omissions or have additional suggestions or amendments, please contact Nadia Todorova ([email protected] or 905-507-1107 ext 225).

http://www.raqsb.mto.gov.on.ca/techpOPSS%20127%20Rental%20Ratesubs/ops.nsf/d37f5a16d8174ffa85256d130066857f/ca57886f1d1ce26e85257cca0051472c/$FILE/OPSS%20127%20Apr2015.pdf

mailto:[email protected]



May 5, 2015 Bulletin # 52-15

More Golf!

Please find details of Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance’s annual golf tournament. Tournament: 11th Annual ORCGA Golf Tournament

Date: Wednesday, June 17th

Location: Deer Creek Golf and Banquet Facility, Ajax

Time: 12:00 pm shotgun start

Registration & Sponsorship: Click here Please contact Lori O’Doherty at 905-392-0596 for additional details.

http://orba.org/system/documents/documents/3696/original/MTO_Reconnection_Golf_Brochure_2015.pdf?1430747851

http://orba.org/system/documents/documents/3699/original/June_Golf_Registration_Sponsorship_Form_-2015.pdf?1430830847



May 8, 2015 Bulletin # 54-15

Reminders

A couple of important reminders. ORBA Scholarships Students entering their first year in a university Civil Engineering program or a college Civil Engineering Technology or Technician program this fall are eligible for one of two $2,000 scholarships. The application deadline is May 15th. Additional details, including the application, can be accessed at orba.org/scholarships. Summer Round Up Just over a month away is our Summer Round Up, presented by Bermingham Foundation Solutions. Thank you to Bermingham for their sponsorship. We have two sponsorship packages still available. This is a great opportunity for networking in a wonderful setting. We look forward to seeing all Contractor and Associate members. Date: Wednesday, June 10th

Location: Sarcoa Restaurant, Hamilton

Time: 6:00 – 9:00 pm

Registration: orba.org/roundup Enjoy the warm weather this weekend. Happy Mother’s Day!

http://orba.org/scholarships

http://orba.org/roundup



May 13, 2015 Bulletin # 55-15

ORBA Calls for Safe Driving in Construction Zones – Media Release

Please find below a copy of ORBA’s media release sent out today regarding safe driving in construction zones. For more information on this release, please contact Ashley De Souza, Director, Government Relations, ORBA, at 905-507-1107 ext. 223 or [email protected]. Mississauga, ON - As we enter into our first long weekend of the summer, Ontario Road Builders' Association (ORBA) reminds all Ontarians to drive safely, especially when travelling through construction zones. Posted construction zone speed limits advise drivers of the legal speed in which to travel through these sections of roads and highways. These posted speed limits are reduced to protect drivers and construction workers. Although the Ontario Highway Traffic Act allows for fines to double in construction zones when workers are present, motorists are asked to follow the posted speed limits at all times. ORBA thanks the Ontario Provincial Police for their efforts in patrolling construction zones. ORBA will continue advocating for safety cameras within construction and community safety zones. "We know that distracted driving and excessive speed are two leading causes of serious injuries and fatalities on Ontario roads and highways. Unfortunately, all too often, these two factors are also to blame for serious injuries and deaths to drivers and workers within construction zones." states Geoff Wilkinson, Executive Director of ORBA. "We ask motorists to obey posted construction zone speed limits and help us save lives this construction season." Since inception in 1927, ORBA has shared its expertise about road construction and safety issues. In addition to our work in promoting safe construction zones, ORBA also created the "Let us Lead the Way" (snowplowsafety.ca) campaign to help educate drivers about safe winter driving - especially around snow plows. ORBA is pleased to contribute to making Ontario's highways the safest in North America.




May 21, 2015 Bulletin # 56-15

Changes to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act

There are new changes to the Employment Standards Act that aim to provide better understanding for workers on their rights in the workplace. Starting on May 20th, employers will be required to provide employees with a copy of the province’s employment standards poster, as well as continuing to post it in the workplace where it is likely to be seen. Employers have until June 19, 2015 to ensure the poster has been distributed. Previously, employers were only legally required to post an Employment Standards poster. Now they have to give a copy to their employees. The newly-designed Employment Standards Act poster can be downloaded electronically here. In the case of new hires, employers will have 30 days from the employee’s start date to provide them with the poster and it must be provided in languages other than English if an employee requests a translated version. Translated versions are available from the Ministry of Labour website. As of May 20th, employment standards officers now have the authority to require employers to conduct a self-audit to ensure the protection of workers’ rights covered under the Employment Standards Act. A self-audit requires employers to review their own records to show Employment Standards Officers that they are meeting the requirements of the Employment Standards Act, which include standards such as:

• Hours of work • Eating periods • Public Holiday Pay • Wages and overtime pay

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pdf/poster.pdf

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/poster.php#print_info


These changes are among the provisions of Bill 18, the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, which the government passed last fall. Please contact Nadia Todorova ([email protected] or 905-507-1107 ext 225) if you have questions.



May 21, 2015 Bulletin # 57-15

ORBA Members Inspect Worst Roads Thank you to the 15 member companieswhichprovided the technical analysis for the 2105 Worst Roads Campaign. The inspection of the 50 nominated roads across the province could not have been done without the outstanding support of Facca Incorporated, Looby Construction Limited, Lavis Contracting Co. Ltd., Steed and Evans Limited, K. J. Beamish Construction Co. Limited, Powell Contracting Limited, BOT Construction Limited, R.W. Tomlinson Limited, Norjohn Contracting and Paving Limited, Miller Paving Limited, Georgian Paving Limited, Coco Paving Incorporated, Cruickshank, Villeneuve Construction Co. Ltd. and Pioneer Construction Inc. Please find below a copy of ORBA’s media release sent out today regarding the Top 10 Worst Roads in Ontario.For more information on this release, please contact Geoff Wilkinson, Executive Director, ORBA, at 905-507-1107 ext. 224 or [email protected].

Mississauga, ON – The technical analysis performed by members of Ontario Builders’ Association (ORBA), on the Top 10 Worst Roads in Ontario announced today, reaffirms the need for more investment in municipal infrastructure across the province. Fifteen ORBA member companies inspected and verified the 50 nominated roads across Ontario in this year’s Worst Roads campaign. Consistent across the province, the inspections revealed that investments in road maintenance are needed with roads showing signs of potholes, pavement cracks, rutting and poor traffic flow. Annually, CAA compiles a list of the Top 10 Worst Roads in Ontario but this year expanded the list to include the worst roads in eight regions across the province. The regional lists of the worst roads create greater awareness of the poor state of local roads in Ontario municipalities. “The breadth and scope of this year’s campaign once again solidified that although much work has been done across the province to maintain and repair Ontario’s roads, much more is needed to tackle the staggering municipal infrastructure deficit in Ontario,” commented Geoff Wilkinson, Executive Director of ORBA. “Eliminating the staggering infrastructure deficit currently facing municipalities as well as expanding our existing transportation infrastructure will place municipalities and Ontario at a competitive advantage.” Technical Analysis Checklists of all 50 nominated roads and select photos are available at orba.org/worstroads.



May 22, 2015 Bulletin # 58-15

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION TENDER: KENORA AMC

Ontario Road Builders' Association (ORBA) promotes and supports the growth of Ontario's transportation infrastructure industry. Since its foundation in 1927, ORBA has been an advocate of tenders being conducted in a fair and transparent process with terms and conditions, which are fair to both the owner and contractor. ORBA has concerns regarding the terms and penalties contained within the current Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) AMC Performance Contracts. ORBA members are advised to exercise caution when reviewing the Kenora AMC Contract No. PBMC 2015-01, tender close May 28, 2015. This is the first contract issued in the format of a 4th generation AMC Performance Contract. But the contract format is built on the wording used in the disputed 3rd generation AMC performance contracts and also contains additional clauses which further exacerbate the ability of contractors to achieve the required 100% performance standards. The MTO model of Performance compliance is effectively based on 100% performance compliance and the MTO issues major penalties for non-compliance. Ongoing discussions and negotiations with the MTO have failed to produce an acceptable contract model which addresses the concerns from contractors on the crippling issues related to the interpretation of contract clauses and the punitive penalty process incorporated into the current contracts. Under the current contract model, the industry is unsustainable. Ongoing disputes on the existing performance contracts have led to millions of dollars of payments deducted from contractor’s payments without a satisfactory dispute resolution in place to manage and mitigate the penalty regime currently employed by the MTO. Based on these factors, the ORBA Review of PBMC 2015-01, Kenora is provided for your reference. ORBA recommends that member contractors seek professional and legal advice on the obligations and penalties contained within the Kenora AMV PBMC 2015-01 before submitting bids for the Kenora AMC Contract No. PBMC 2015-01. Any decision to submit a bid, not to submit a bid or on which terms and conditions to include in a bid is of course a decision for each contractor to make independently. ORBA is issuing this Bulletin for information purposes only and not to suggest that any contractor pursue any particular course of action in response to the RFP. If you have any questions or concerns about this Bulletin or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact Geoff Wilkinson at 905-507-1107, ext. 224 or [email protected].

http://orba.org/system/documents/documents/3728/original/ORBA_Review_of_PBMC_2015-01_Kenora.pdf?1432319101

ORBA Review of PBMC 2015-01, Kenora May 19, 2015

2

Executive Summary By all accounts the First and Second Generation AMC contracts were deemed a complete success. Contractors rose to the challenge and met the specifications. Concerns about the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) 3rd Generation Highway Maintenance Performance contracts began in 2008 when the MTO first introduced their proposed new 3rd Generation AMC contract model to ORBA and the industry contractors. The industry welcomed new challenges, as global and domestic experience of competitive models of road maintenance had shown delivery efficiencies ranging between 10 and 40 per cent. However the 3rd Generation concept as presented by the MTO was vague on many of the performance targets, and also the penalty structures. ORBA voiced these concerns to the MTO in writing, however at no time prior to tendering were these concerns addressed. While Contracts were based on performance criteria, other aspects of these contracts were also changed. These included contractor qualification to do the work was now based on their financial rating and not on previous highway maintenance experience in Ontario. Standards were also changed, in particular the route time for completing routes on major highways. OPSEU contracts were transferred to the contractors without adequate time to review or negotiate agreements. Contractors were threatened with non-award if they tried to carve off the OPSEU agreement from their contracts. Furthermore, material use quantities disclosed in the RFP’s were sometimes not a factual representation of actual quantities used. These factors had the desired effect and produced extremely competitive prices as a result of new competition entering the market, changes in the route times which reduced the number of equipment required, and also changes in technology such as tow plows which allowed further reductions in fleet size as one tow plow can plow the equivalent of two combination trucks. The 2015 Audit report states that the MTO saved 37 million dollars per annum, utilizing the 3rd generation contract model. Issues with performance and penalties began to be seen as early as 2012. The industry-raised concerns that the MTO’s approach to managing the 3rd Generation contracts was not as conveyed to the industry during the pre-tender discussions. Penalties racked up against contractors, and cash flow issues began to bite hard into contractors operating cash flow as penalties were deducted from contractor payments. All of these issues produced a perfect storm that spilled over into the public domain during the sever winters of 2013 / 2014 and also 2014 / 2015. The MTO recognized the cracks in the system and began to add equipment initially in the northern contracts and then in the south to address service level on ramps and passing lanes. Other areas impacted were the previous MO areas, which are now serviced in line with the provincial standard. Previously service levels were often higher than the provincial standard as MTO officials directed work. On April 2, 2015, the MTO called tenders for the first, new model 3rd Generation Contract, - PBMC 2015-01, a maintenance contract for 1,624 two lane kilometers, located in Kenora, Ontario. This contract is tendered as a result of an agreement between the MTO and the incumbent contractor to terminate the existing performance contract midway through the original contract term.

3

This ORBA review provides an overview of the key changes in this first new model 3rd Generation Contract. These latest revisions and approach to penalties are contrasted against a backdrop of historical successes with AMC outsourcing contracts within the province. Recommendations to move beyond the impasse that currently exists between the industry and the MTO to improve overall efficiency and safety on the highways are listed below.

4

Background In the 1980’s, the MTO first began outsourcing some of its winter maintenance activities through a process the Ministry referred to as Managed Outsourcing (MO). Approximately 50% of the winter equipment fleet was outsourced although the MTO managed and directed all of the work. The transition from an in-house delivery of maintenance services to a fully outsourced delivery model began in 1996. In order for external parties to bid on MTO work, particularly work that the MTO previously self performed, it was necessary to express the MTO's standards in contract language that was biddable. This required a specific end result that did not restrict innovation, and incorporated the legislated obligations and responsibilities of government. At that time, the MTO had Quality Standards and Prescriptive Operating Instructions in place, which described methods, equipment and procedures for in-house staff to carry out the work. The MTO did not however self-report to the public on how well it did in meeting these standards. Therefore there were no standards to compare the MTO performance against the standards that have been put in place since the introduction of AMC outsourcing. The MTO spent several months translating these in-house procedures into end-result oriented documents. The specifications were referred to as Maintenance Special Provisions (MSPs) and in general spelt out triggers for initiating the work, and minimum treatment and reporting standards. It also introduced for the first time Bare Pavement and Circuit Time targets for completing winter maintenance work. For MO contracts, separate contract documents were developed for each type of work required, and the revised specification text was inserted directly into each specialty contract. The contracts were modular with a standardized front section. AMCs also adopted the modular MSP format for specifications and standards. Although the service standards were the same, the AMC and MO contract clauses were different to reflect differences in contractor responsibilities and payment methods.

• Routine maintenance in Ontario • Pothole repair • Shoulder grading • Repair guide rail and fences • Sweeping and debris removal • Traffic signal and illumination

scheduled maintenance and repair • Tunnel maintenance

• Bridge cleaning, scheduled maintenance (lift bridges) and minor repair

• Sign replacement • Grass cutting and weed control • Line painting • Winter maintenance • Plowing, liquids, sanding and salting • Emergency - Response to collisions,

spills

In addition, schedules of liquidated damages or penalties were developed for both MO contracts and AMC contracts. In AMC contracts an innovative schedule was developed that had increasingly severe penalties depending on the total number of penalties already levied on a

5

given contract. If the total number of penalties reached a prescribed level, the contractor would not have the option of renewing the contract. The generic contract packages that were developed for both AMC and MO contracts contained “designer note” sections, which facilitated contract customization for a given geographic area or specific combinations of work types. The generic contracts were continually updated centrally from MO to MO and AMC to AMC. Managed Outsourcing (MO) contracts and Area Maintenance Contracts (AMC), were developed to ensure a viable and competitive supplier base. In MO areas a number of functional contracts were managed and directed by the MTO and contractors were paid based on the unit prices they tendered. In AMC areas, the contractors performed most or all of the maintenance activities in a given geographic area under a lump-sum payment system. Payments of the annual lump-sum are made in installments based on 2/18 of the annual payment, for payments during winter months and 1/18 of the annual lump-sum during the summer months. The AMC contractor managed and planned the work in order to fulfill the standards and specifications in the contract. The MTO completed the renewal of the second generation of AMC contracts in May 2005. The contracts continued to be refined as experience was gained, generally with more comprehensive work and longer durations. By 2000, the MTO had outsourced one hundred percent of maintenance operations using this blended approach of two contract types. There were 7 MO areas with up to 1,900 equivalent two-lane kms in each area. There were 16 AMC areas, with a combined total of 36 contracts. A total of nine separate companies had been successful in obtaining an AMC, and there were hundreds of smaller contractors participating in MO areas. Fifty-eight percent of Ontario provincial highway maintenance was under the AMC model with the remaining forty-two percent delivered by the MO model. Success of First and Second Generation AMC Contracts By all accounts the first and second Generation AMC contracts were deemed a complete success. Contractors rose to the challenge and met the specifications. While the contracts did incorporate penalty clauses, the actual number of penalties levied against contractors was quite small. Cost of providing maintenance on provincial roads was reduced and service levels rose. Public statements issued by the MTO and the Auditor General confirms this.

6

“The Ministry and the government of Ontario consider the privatization of highway maintenance a resounding success. Maintenance work is being delivered to standard, and the province's standards have been reformatted to support the new delivery methods. The Ministry has monitored and carried out quality assurance on the contractor's performance and is confident that the Ministry's legislated responsibilities are being fulfilled and that savings have been achieved. New Area Maintenance Contract and Managed Outsourcing delivery methods have been developed, a new AMC industry has been created where one did not previously exist, and the industry capability to carry out Ontario's provincial highway maintenance has been demonstrated. Contractors have made job opportunities available to the MTO's former staff, thus retaining knowledge within the industry. The enormous effort that was made to transform the delivery methods of highway maintenance in Ontario was a sound investment, but it is still work in progress. Possibilities include continuing contract refinements and more comprehensive delivery methods such as Area Term Contracts. ” “As a result, a robust and experienced private sector industry has developed and is providing high quality routine maintenance work at competitive prices. “ MTO - Malcolm MacLean, et.al. At the “Best Practices in Contracting Routine Maintenance Services– From Managed Outsourcing to Full Private-sector Delivery” Session of the 2005 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada Calgary, Alberta “Mr. Rafi: Sure. At a general level, anyhow -- and I'll ask Carl to address some of the types of

sanctions we apply -- our contractors' performance has been, I think, examined by the auditor and found to be in high compliance with the standards that we set for them. We do believe that that is actually a function not just of LAC standards but of their adherence and of our experience over several years in that regard with them.

There is a demerit point system that we use for sanctions that allows us to increase the demerits, which has a financial penalty. We would obviously look at public safety as the ultimate concern that we would have. We're quite pleased to be able to say that we don't have examples of public safety being compromised, but, of course, depending on severe weather conditions or what have you, they may not meet the threshold standard each and every hour of their requirements. To give you an indication of some of the specifics, perhaps I'll ask Carl to respond. Mr. Carl Hennum: In the contracts, as the deputy explained, we have pre-set schedules for what

happens if the contractor does not meet our requirements. These could be points that accumulate up to a certain level, or it could, in fact, be financial penalties. Yes, we have applied these on a regular basis. I'm happy to say that we are quite impressed with the performance of our contractors, quite frankly, but things do happen.

The penalties or the points are for a whole range of types of shortcomings that could be anything from not keeping proper records, for example, to not showing up on time for a snowstorm, or using the wrong material on the highway for anti-icing and de-icing purposes and so on. So we have applied these on a regular basis. The contractors take these things very carefully. As you know, we have a competitive environment for awarding our contracts, and they operate on probably not a very generous margin, because there is keen competition out there. So penalties such as financial penalties are taken very seriously. In addition, of course, we have discussions

7

with them about what they're going to do in order to prevent these things from occurring again. I can guarantee to you, they don't take these things lightly, and they have some very serious discussions with us as to the fairness and consistency in the way we apply these things. So far, we have not gotten to the stage where we have contemplated any break of any contracts or refusal to renew contracts. “I'm happy to say that we are quite impressed with the performance of our contractors” Saad Rafi and Carl Hennum Committee Transcripts: Standing Committee on Public Accounts - 2005-Mar-31 - 2004 Annual Report “We found that the Ministry had appropriate controls over the contracting and payments processes. Specifically, the Ministry ensured that contractors bidding on Ministry work were financially sound, a competitive number of bids were received for each contract, and the best bids were accepted” 2004 Annual Report of the Office of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario “Based on information we obtained from the Ministry of Transportation, significant progress has been made in addressing our recommendations and those relating to highway construction administration made by the Ministry” 2006 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario Third Generation Performance Contracts. In 2008, the MTO approached the industry through ORBA to introduce their future foray into Performance-based Road Maintenance contracts. These contracts defined minimum conditions of services for road, bridge, and traffic assets and other services such as winter maintenance, the collection and management of asset inventory data, call-out and attendance to emergencies, and response to public requests, complaints and feedback that had to be met by the contractor versus the previously prescribed methodology used in the first and second tranches of AMC’s. These contracts also introduced much greater penalties for non performance with performance being based on the contractors ability to comply with the performance standards defined in the contract, and not on the amount of work and services executed. The push to change the Second Generation contracts came from The MTO. Contractors had become familiar with the 2nd Generation Model and had been successful in delivering the requirements with only minor issues related to performance penalties. According to the 2015 Auditor General report “The real drive for change came from the MTO, In 2009, when the MO contracts and AMCs began expiring, Ontario was experiencing the effects of the 2008 economic downturn, One of the drivers for this change was that Ontario was experiencing the effects of the 2008 economic downturn, putting pressure on the Ministry to find ways to further decrease its costs. The Ministry forecast that its costs for highway maintenance and contractor oversight could reach $273 million in the 2009/10 fiscal years. Almost two-thirds of this amount, roughly $174 million, related to winter maintenance. Under these circumstances, the Ministry chose in 2009 to transition into “performance-based” AMCs. The Ministry estimated at this time that it could realize annual savings of $4.6 million if just four contract areas were maintained under performance-based AMCs, and this was a key factor in the Ministry deciding to make all

8

subsequent contracts performance-based. The 2015 Provincial Auditors report noted that total annual contract values of all MO’s and Previous AMC amounted to $174,844,000 versus the total annual amount of all performance based contracts being $138,471,000, an annual decrease of $36,000,000 per annum. On top of this the MTO has deducted penalties of $5,835,123 million on contractors failing to comply with the performance specifications. In many instances penalties have been deducted from payments and contractors are faced with a non-effective dispute resolution process. Contracts are essentially 100% performance contracts and were doomed to fail. Contractors had requested that a fair model of measurement be incorporated that would be based on global performance standards of high performance but these requests were ignored. The MTO also specifically changed standards and requirements from the second round of AMC contracts with the intent of lowering prices. These measures included a change in the circuit time on Class 1 highways from 1.3 hours to 1.6 hours. While the Ministry has contested that this did not change standards, the new standard provides 23% more time to complete the route and consequently impacts the number of units of equipment utilized in the calculations to determine the required number of units. The 2015 Auditor Report states “In addition in previous managed outsourcing areas the MTO had provided higher levels of service than their own standards for safety reasons, however in the retendering of these contracts as third generation Performance Contracts no special conditions were incorporated into the contract conditions to preserve this previous accommodation for safety concerns and did not incorporate the concerns of their own staff to these concerns.” The MTO also dropped the requirement to DLA. The MTO made other changes to the contracts such as a requirement to maintain a certain specified reflectivity specification with line painting and moved away from the previous requirement to paint all lines annually. Once again contractors were encouraged to factor this into the bid calculations as a way of reducing overall costs. Most importantly, the MTO dropped its experience requirement related to maintaining highways during the winter in a northern climate in favor of a financial stability rating. It is the industry’s contention that the current issue affecting winter maintenance is a reengineering of the contracts by the MTO to drive cost out of the maintenance contracts. It is not an issue of penalties but one of non-functioning contract specifications that impose an unfair risk transfer on contractors. A comprehensive definition of performance measurement is offered by the US Federal highway Administration (Shaw, 2003)

“Performance measurement is a process of assessing progress toward achieving predetermined goals, including information on the efficiency with which resources are transformed into goods and services (outputs), the quality of those outputs (how well they are delivered to clients and the extent to which clients are satisfied) and outcomes (the results of a program activity compared to its intended purpose), and the effectiveness of government operations in terms of their specific contributions to program objectives.”

9

MTO Third Generation AMC Contracts. Outcome Target Indicators

• The owner, at its discretion, may collect outcome target indicators. • May consist of up to 100% of the contract area. • Exact location at the owner’s discretion. • More thorough data collection may be carried out if there is evidence of non-

conformance. • May include a review of the Contractor’s records, plans and actions taken. • The outcome target indicators will be.

o Shared with the contractor. o The only indicators used to apply consequences for non- conformance.

MTO Third Generation AMC Contracts. Performance Based (2009 - 2014)

• Conformance to the outcome targets • Upon completing the collection of the outcome target indicators, the owner will: • Have the complete discretion in the choice of outcome target Indicators to use in

determining conformance. • Make an assessment of conformance or non-conformance to the outcome targets. • Include consideration for events that are beyond the care and control of the contractor. • Examine all relevant factors involved with the situation including the contractor’s

rationale as to why the situation occurred. • If appropriate, a notice of non-conformance will be issued to the contractor for features

that do not conform to the outcome targets.

Source: Highway Maintenance Contracting in Ontario, Doug Wipperman Contract Innovations Office Ontario Ministry of Transportation September 29, 2011

10

Introduction On April 2, 2015, The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) called tenders for the first, new model 3rd Generation Contract, - No.PBMC 2015-01, a maintenance contract for 1,624 two lane kilometers, Located in Kenora, Ontario. This review provides an overview of the key changes in this first new model 3rd Generation contract. These latest revisions and approach to penalties are contrasted against a backdrop of historical successes with AMC outsourcing contracts within the province and provides some possible suggestions to move beyond the impasse that currently exists between the industry and the MTO. PBMC 2015-01 This contract is the first new model 3rdAMC Generation contract to be tendered by the Mosinee the original AMC Performance contracts were launched in 2009. Changes include Section 5.15 – the MTO includes a potential bonus. In Section 6.5.1 – the MTO has included a best value approach for awarding the contract. The contracts also continue to include Capital work on a line item basis. Despite these changes, in many ways this contract has been restructured as a hybrid Performance / Prescribed contract. It contains most of the language of the 3rd generation contracts, and some of the mandated approaches of the 2nd Generation AMC contracts. More importantly, the contract contains many of the performance targets contained within the 3rd Generation Performance contract. And most significantly the contract still includes severe penalties for non-conformances that are issued at the discretion of the MTO’s Coordinators. The changes in establishing penalties although different than the previous 3rd Generation contracts do not result in less severe financial consequences. The new penalty structure results in increased financial penalties not less, and these are more punitive than that of 3rd Generation Contracts launched in 2009. The MTO have also not addressed in this version of tender, concerns expressed by the industry relative to the inherent risk of the 3rd Generation performance based contract model. Non-conformance consequences are high on an individual basis. The audit process is open ended with no limit, therefore the consequences have no limit – the Contractor is unable to rationalize the potential financial risk. In addition, the MTO were unable to answer questions from contractors related to these concerns at the pre-tender meeting. Financial penalties for Consequences for non-conformance have been described by the MTO as impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain and therefore by bidding the contract, the contractor agrees to the amount. The penalties are extremely punitive and the industry cannot agree to these terms as part of the RFP submission process. A Request for Tenders (RFT) should list all of the primary criteria that will be used in evaluating the respondents. In many instances such information is lacking and requests for clarification have produced little, if any, additional information. The contract close date is May 28th. Clause 3.24 of the RFP requires that the contractor’s offer is irrevocable for 90 days, which expires August 26th. The contract start date is September 1st. It

11

was presented at the pre-tender meeting that the expected award date would be June 30th. There are several outcome targets requiring action within a certain timeframe of contract commencement, e.g. Contractor Identification Signage. The ability to comply with this and other requirements such as winter equipment deployment for the first transition period commencing September 22nd and the requirement for new conspicuity panels may be compromised if the intended award date is missed. Either the Irrevocable Period should change, or the Outcome Targets relaxed. Given that the MTO has not allowed sufficient time for contractors to evaluate this tender in the detail required given the risks involved.62 days to mobilize a contract with approx. 50 + winter pieces of equipment plus all other required equipment, labor and material, is far too little time. Specific Concerns of ORBA Members – Contract No. PBMC 2015-01 1. Contract Term and Bidding period. This is a 58 month Contract Term with a potential 3-

year extension. There is no commitment from the MTO to extend. Therefore the contractor must bid this as a 5-year term leading to significant extra cost to MTO. Equipment must be 100% paid for in a 58-month ownership term (50 combination units, 5 graders, 12 loaders, 40 pick-up trucks, 3-4 tanker trucks for DLA……….) The process included in the RFP requires a potential contractor to calculate plow and spreader routes using the Ministry’s forms. This process results in the more equipment being required to satisfy the terms of the contract than is available from the current contractor. With a limited time available to acquire heavy maintenance equipment following award of the contract the successful proponent will not have sufficient time to purchase and mobilize required routing equipment prior to the phase in period for winter maintenance.

2. Performance V Prescribed Contract. PBMC is considered to be a performance contract;

MTO is dictating the patrolling, plowing, spreading operations, and patrolling operations, including equipment numbers along with many less impactful issues. Therefore this contract is not a performance contract and should be called a hybrid contract. We should refrain from calling this a performance contract.

3. Maintenance Estimating Template (Envelope 4 - PBMC). Used to evaluate the lump sum

price, may also be used during the contract term to determine appropriateness of price and also be put into Escrow for contract duration. This document requires detailed pricing of labour (including salaries of staff assigned to the contract), equipment (breakdown of cab, chassis, added features including accessories), and materials. In addition, it requires exposure of details on all the categories for corporate overheads, administration and management and profit margins. If this document is not submitted the submission will be deemed non-compliant. These requirements to provide detailed staffing, equipment and material pricing within Envelop 4 is unprecedented. Although this document is intended to

12

be placed in Escrow, and available only if agreed to by both parties to the contract, discussions with MTO officials indicate when the MTO will use this information during the contract term. This would indicate that it is not a sealed document. No detailed criteria has been provided to potential bidders as to what criteria would be used in deciding when to open the envelop and who would have to agree prior to its opening. The submission of financial information to a level of detail that undermines the contractor’s proprietary costing information is not acceptable. MTO advised at the pre-tender meeting that this Escrow documentation would be used primarily to settle any concerns regarding the imbalance of tenders and would be accessible only by the Tender Section. The information could be accessed later in the event that changes to the contract are being negotiated. The need and intended application for the use of this information is questionable. It is anticipated that while it may be available to either party at any time when there is a dispute regarding any pricing in the future, change orders…etc. E.G. truck pricing for 50 combos or 40 half tons at bid time, this pricing is irrelevant to the price of 1 - 10 trucks during the term of the contract. The AMC tenders are lump sum at the discretion of MTO and yet the level of pricing breakdown essentially gives MTO the advantage of no risk price revisions without transfer of the contractor’s lump sum risk. This will be the MTO default position while they have documents in Escrow, contractors expect that MTO will be in this document monthly, as there are very few estimates we give them, they do not dispute. Contractors cannot have those numbers exposed, as they will not stay confidential.

4. Schedule L, General Conditions. The GC’s included here are not applicable to a lump sum

contract, specifically a maintenance lump sum contract. These GC’s are geared to a capital contract and give the MTO’s Contract Administrator significant authority. This includes at his or her discretion the right to change the operation of the Highway Maintenance Contractor’s work without any compensation. GC 3.03 and GC3.04 gives the Contract Administrator the right to determine what is a safety issue or emergency and to direct the contractor’s operations without compensation of any kind. This change is a significant concern, the GC’s inserted in this PBMC are not reflective or workable for a LS contract compared to an itemized contract. There are conflicting sections to the RFP and sections, which cannot be agreed to such as allowing the Ministry to modify methods and materials at any time they feel appropriate and to the contractor’s cost. Also, under GC 3.10.04 issue a work directive on lump sum contract to compel the contractor to proceed with the work, regardless of the capital expenditure required to do so, and negotiate later. These GC’s must be removed and rebuilt to be applicable to this kind of contract. It is clear it was inserted into this contract for the most part from the Construction GC’s using the incorrect and often used phrase “a contract is a contract”

13

5. Performance Measures - Schedule A. The initial consequences in Schedule A, remains very high and there are many of them. The large size of these consequences will increase the risk cost applied to the bids. 100% compliance financial penalties for Consequences for Non-conformance have been described by MTO as impracticable and extremely difficult to ascertain and therefore by bidding the contract, the contractor agrees to the amount. 100% compliance is not achievable. MTO contract administrators at MTO are not knowledgeable enough in field observations to make the distinction between RFP text and the real field activities. The penalties are extremely punitive and the industry cannot agree as part of the RFP submission process. Penalties are punitive not representative (text in RFP indicates that the parties agree that the values are representative) we cannot by submitting a response by default, agree to these values.

6. Item pricing of In Scope Capital Section 1.5. The contractor is concerned with the unit

price amounts provided in the tender for in-scope capital work for capital improvements work and unincorporated road maintenance. The contractor should provide their own unit bid price for these items. If not, the only opportunity to correct the compensation will be by adjusting the lump sum amount, which will compromise the integrity of the pricing balance.

7. Local Roads Boards. Work Items have been included in the contract, however the MTO has

inserted the unit price that the contractor will be paid. Unit prices are not appropriate for scope of work. Feedback from contractors indicates that the MTO will not consider changing the unit prices they have inserted. In addition it spears equipment must be dedicated to the LRB for 58 months. To stay, as is payment for the equipment must be moved into the 58 month lump sum.

8. Transfield’s Collective Agreement with OPSEU. It appears that the successful proponent

will be a successor employer to Transfield with OPSEU and will be required to take on the incumbent contractor’s Collective Agreement. As such, the contractor will need full disclosure of the collect agreement in which the current contract has negotiated. The short bid period does not allow for a challenge to the Labour Board prior to bid close. This forms an unnecessarily high risk. Contractors will be bidding using a gold plated collective agreement. The MTO did not answer the question during bid enquiry, and stated that we should get the collective agreement from either OPSEU or Transfield. This is unacceptable.

9. Salt quantities. MTO salt risk share numbers are set significantly lower than actual use

leading to a large payback on the risk sharing formula.RFP indicates the risk sharing number to be 16,000 tonnes of salt. This year salt consumption is over 30,000 tonnes. MTO response

14

to bid question, “shall remain” as per RFP. This creates a significant impact to 5 year rolling average.

10. Equipment. Equipment being made available has not been qualified other than it is available

at the established price. No information given on the vehicle attachments or on the condition of the units. Maintenance records have not been made available or has the current owner as part of the sale deal offered any guarantee with regard to their condition or whether the equipment will be "safetied". Also lighting requirements expect the equipment to have a portion of the equipment outfitted with the new standard, this represents a challenge with only 62 days to mobilize and another 22 days beyond that to have approximately 50% of winter fleet in place and operating.

11. Structural Maintenance Work. Contractor is responsible for all Structural Maintenance

Work on all structures in a 1600 km contract. This is designated as Lump Sum work and the contract indicates all loose, damaged, missing bridge components are tightened, repaired or replaced; this includes railing, handrail, bearings joints etc. No order of magnitude. How can bridge joints, bearings etc. be realistic bid when there is little to no information provided which would allow contractors to measure this work and quantify pricing and risk? Contract needs to move all bridge work into Work Order work accept for annual inspections after flooding events etc.

12. AMDCS - Automatic Locator. Is mandatory on nearly 100% of the fleet including winter

equipment includes requirements for plow up/down, wing up/down, tow plow status etc. is required to be 95 % of all units operating 100% of the time, all data shall be 100% accurate and MTO shall have access 100% of the time. Severe compounding penalties are levied for less than 100% compliance. If the service provider goes down due to factors beyond a contractors reasonable care and control such as server, satellite, storms, power outages and data is lost, and contractors do not recover 100% of data, the penalties applied will bankrupt the contractor.

13. Schedule C Data, This is the historical accomplishment of all maintenance activities from

which proponents gauge the magnitude of work. No data has been supplied except sand and salt usage and equipment hours. A Request for Tenders (RFT) should list all of the primary criteria that will be used in evaluating the respondents. These criteria, and the information requested in the responses, should be stated in such a way as to minimize the amount of subjectivity required in the evaluation. Also, the RFT documents should contain sufficient information about the project and the scope of work to enable bidders to formulate correct bids for the work being tendered. Potential bidders within the industry have examined the bid

15

documents for Contract, - No. PBMC 2015-01 and have found that in many instances such information is lacking and requests for clarification have produced little if any additional information.

14. Cost Sharing on High Cost Impact Structures. There is no cost sharing for energy

absorbing terminals or guide rail end treatment; this is a high cost item with no predictability of failures.

15. New Signs. The contract states all new sign installations including those as result of a change

in policy or standard are part of the lump sum work. This is not a biddable item.

16. Winter performance. The measure for ground frost indicates there shall be no ground frost. Penalties shall apply when there is no proactive action to prevent ground frost from occurring. The contractor cannot prevent ground frost, yet significant financial penalties, RFP asks that we explain our plan for preventing it from occurring and how we manage it. The MTO was never able to prevent ground frost.

17. Material Volumes & Pricing. The MTO has indicated that they will fill the material storage

facilities with sand/salt. We will need confirmation of the quantities and pricing of the material to be transferred. The payment structure for this must be set out so the contractor can determine his or her cash flow requirements.

18. Section 5.15 – We applaud MTO for including a potential bonus, however, we would

encourage MTO to make the potential bonus higher than $100,000. This is a very small value compared to the costs incurred in this type of contract. We recommend that MTO increase the value of this bonus to $500,000 per year. Notwithstanding the addition of the bonus clause, the subsequent consequences are very large in value and greatly outweigh the potential bonus for good performance. The large size of these consequences will increase the risk cost applied to the bids. We recommend that MTO move away from such severe consequences to reduce the overall price that they will pay for the contracts.

19. Score Evaluation. In section 10I, the evaluation process, the MTO is using a “qualitative“ score evaluation system to establish a value which the “quantitative” tender price gets divided by and an evaluated number is created leaves lots of room to pick your bidder. ORBA understands the desire to have an evaluation process, which is not solely based on price, but the process must be clear and transparent for all bidders.

20. Bid Enquiries. Responses to bid enquiries are still flooding in from the MTO. This leaves contractors little time to evaluate prior to bidding. The tender closes on May 28, and requires

16

at least two days just to assemble the bid complete the document, and have all the required copies.

17

Conclusion PBMC 2015-01 - This new revised contract model contains many of the performance targets contained within the original 3rd Generation Performance Contract, but in many ways has been restructured as a hybrid Performance / Prescribed contract and contains most of the language of the original 3rd Generation Contracts and some of the mandated approaches of the 2nd Generation AMC contracts. However, despite the changes in language, the penalty clauses are even more punitive than those contained within the original 3rd Generation Contracts launched in 2009. ORBA and its member organizations have requested that the MTO revise some of the clauses within the 3rd Generation Contracts to get back to the principles that were outlined in industry discussions with the MTO prior to the launch of the 3rd Generation contracts. These discussions requested a more reasonable approach to the performance rating and suggested that the benchmark should be set at a target of 90 to 95% as an acceptable standard for evaluating highway maintenance performance. ORBA strongly objected at that time to any rating system that was based on 100% being the pass rate and communicated these concerns to the MTO in writing. At the time the MTO assured contractors that the MTO would be reasonable and would work with the industry to make this next generation contract model a success, as was the case with the first and second Generation AMC’s. At no time did the MTO share the contractor evaluation guidelines with contractors before these were issued to their maintenance coordinators to be used as the evaluation standard. This document did eventually filter down to contractors who were stunned to find that in many instances a 100% evaluation criterion was being used to evaluate contractor performance. This led to full utilization of the punitive penalty clauses contained within these contracts against contractors resulting in crippling penalties, withholding of payments and serious cash flow issues for the industry when it was dealing with two of the worst winters in recorded Ontario history. In summary, the specific concerns cited above reflect only the most contentious issues identified by contractor members of ORBA. Only the top items are listed, but contractors have submitted, or will collectively submit, more than one hundred enquiries, many of which to date have resulted in non-responsive answers from the MTO, essentially saying that the MTO will not be adjusting the RFP. ORBA appreciates the open dialogue we have with the Ministry and will work together with the Ministry to address the concerns of all stakeholders as outlined in this report. It is ORBA’s position that the current system of penalizing companies for failing to meet circuit times is flawed. There will be stages during a storm when it is possible that the agreed upon fleet will be unable to meet circuit times as a result of factors beyond the contractor's control. Traffic and the weather conditions create situations where operations can continue only at a reduced speed. Using circuit penalties as written, an MTO supervisor may simply ignore mitigating circumstances and penalize the company harshly. We do not support an approach that leaves a company's financial well being to the discretion of an individual. If the MTO adopts the new position that circuit times must be maintained at all costs then the contractor must respond with more equipment to ensure compliance. This will result in greatly increased costs. Even if the winter fleet is doubled in size the risk to the motoring public cannot be eliminated completely. In the past, there were situations where the fleet could not meet the required circuit times as a result

18

of factors beyond control either the control of the MTO or the outsourcing contractors. According to Hensher in workshop report to plenary session, September 17, 2003, “Performance Based Contracts, or any contract for that matter, will not work successfully without a trusting quality relationship between government, regulator and operators” We believe the company should not be penalized if an agreed upon winter fleet is actively employed. ORBA recommends that MTO move away from the severe consequences outlined in the new model 3rd Generation AMC contract to reduce the overall price that they will pay for the contracts. Also in Schedule A, contract PBMC 2015-01 – Many of the outcome targets require compliance 100% of the time. 100% compliance is not practical in the highway environment and in this type of contact. We recommend that the MTO revise the 100% outcome targets to something more practical, such as 90%. Alternatively, we recommend that MTO score a sample of the system/performance elements several times per year in a Maintenance Rating Program and require 80% or 90% compliance, similar to how agencies such as the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Florida Department of Transportation score the performance of similar projects.

19

Appendix 1 - References. 1. Contracted Maintenance Services, At The Ministry Of Transportation, In Ontario, Malcolm

Maclean, P.Eng, Director, Construction And Operations Branch (Presenter), And ShaelGwartz, P. Eng., Manager, Maintenance Office And Sonya Skinner, P. Eng., Head, Maintenance Contracts & Business Analysis Section And Mike Houle, Maintenance Policy Review Officer Paper Prepared For Presentation At The “Best Practices In Contracting Routine Maintenance Services– From Managed Outsourcing To Full Private-Sector Delivery” Session Of The 2005 Annual Conference Of The Transportation Association Of Canada Calgary, Alberta

2. Highway Maintenance Contracting in Ontario, Doug Wipperman Contract Innovations Office Ontario Ministry of Transportation September 29, 2011

3. 2004 Annual Report of the Office of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario 4. 2006 Annual Report of the Office of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario 5. 2015 Annual Report of the Office of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario 6. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, Road Maintenance: Options for Reform, September

2011. 7. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) Feasibility Study, for Performance-Based

Maintenance Contracting, Parsons Brickerhoff, May 15, 2013 8. The Dynamics Of Outsourcing Maintenance Of Civil Infrastructures In Performance Based

Contracts, Schoenmaker Ra, De Bruijn Jab And Herder Pmc, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

9. A Framework For Monitoring Performance-Based Road Maintenance Contracts, Jesus M. De La Garza, Ph.D. Department Of Civil And Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA

10. Construction Management, An Owner's Guide to Using the 'Construction Management' Project Delivery System on Alberta Infrastructure Funded Building Projects April 10, 2001

11. Scan Team Report, NCHRP Project 20-68A, Scan 10-03, Supported by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, March 2012

12. University of Birmingham (UK), Senior Road Executives Programme, Restructuring Road Management, Birmingham, 19-23 April 2004, Cutting Costs and Improving Quality through, Performance-Based Road Management and Maintenance, Contracts, - The Latin American and OECD Experiences -, by Dr. Gunter Zietlow

13. Performance Based Service, Agreements Project Report, October 2009, by Halcrow Group Limited

14. Road Maintenance Performance Contract (RMPC), General Conditions, Queensland, Department of Transport, April 2015

15. The Evolution Of Highway Maintenance, Outsourcing In Alberta, Nick Bucyk, Alberta Infrastructure And Transportation, MohLali, Alberta Infrastructure And Transportation, Paper Prepared For Presentation. At The, Best Practices In Contracting Routine Maintenance Services – From, Managed Outsourcing To Full Private-Sector Delivery,

20

Session, Of The 2005 Annual Conference Of The Transportation Association Of Canada, Calgary, Alberta

16. Effective Winter Highway Maintenance, Through Application Of Partnering Concept, Adel Abdi*1, Hans Lind2, Björn Birgisson3, 1, 3 Department Of Transport Science, Division Of Highway And Railway Engineering, Royal Institute Of Technology – Kth, Stockholm, Sweden

17. The Duty of Fairness, Privilege Clauses, and Negotiating in Tendering, Requests for Proposal and “Hybrid” Procurement processes, Mathew Ghikas, Fasken Martineau,

18. Output and performance based road maintenance contracting – Case Study Serbia, NebojšaRadović, Katarina Mirković_ Miloš , Šešlija,_Igor_Peško

19. - 23. Comments Written By ORBA Members, May 2015.

21

Appendix 2 MTO Web Site Information The Ministry of Transportation has 20 contracts in place to provide winter maintenance services. Five different contractors perform the winter maintenance work. The Rt. Hon. Herb Gray Parkway in Windsor is maintained by a 6th contractor. MTO service commitment is to achieve the bare pavement standard 90% of the time, each winter, across the province. This target has been achieved since the service commitment was implemented in 2003. MTO has a Provincial performance target to meet the bare pavement standard 90 per cent of the time, each winter across the Province. The standard timeframe to restore bare pavement varies depending on winter traffic volume and highway type. Some highways with low traffic remain snow packed for most of the winter.

Winter Season

Performance Target (%) Actual Achievement (%)

2013-2014 90 92 2012-2013 90 95 2011-2012 90 96 2010-2011 90 94 2009-2010 90 96 2008-2009 90 91 2007-2008 90 95 2006-2007 90 96 2005-2006 90 96 2004-2005 90 93

Highway Class Bare Pavement Standard

1 Bare pavement within eight hours of the end of a winter storm, e.g. Highway 401, Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 11 four-lane sections

2 Bare pavement within 16 hours of the end of a winter storm, e.g. Highway 17, Trans-Canada Highway in Ontario

3 Bare pavement within 24 hours of the end of a winter storm, e.g. Highway 35

4 Centre bare pavement within 24 hours of the end of a winter storm; fully bare pavement when conditions permit, e.g. Highway 516. Centre bare means a 2.5m strip in the middle of the road.

5 Snow packed driving surface within 24 hours of the end of a winter storm. Excess snow is plowed off and sand is applied where required to improve friction.


May 25, 2015 Bulletin # 59-15

Update on the Oversize/Overweight Permit Process

As a follow up to bulletin #34-15, as the MTO continues to implement changes to its Oversize/Overweight (O/O) permit services, ORBA has been working closely with MTO to address timely issuance of permits and develop techniques to provide permits within the appropriate timeframe. The ministry has begun piloting an online application process to a number of carriers with participation of ORBA members. The ministry has also hired and trained additional permit issuers to expedite the permitting process. However, ORBA has also worked with MTO to designate an appropriate contact within the ministry who members can contact directly in the event of a permit delay/issue (one taking longer than 72 hours). For emergency needs, ie if you are experiencing longer than usual delays, please contact Sean Doussept, Program Standards Manager. He can be reached at 905-704-2012 or at [email protected] Additionally, members making requests for construction reports can contact Lucie Binding, Supervisor, O/O Permit Issuing Unit at 416-246-7166 or at [email protected]. When filing a request for a construction report, please include the name and e-mail address for the company contact in addition to the company name. Attached to this bulletin is a list compiled by the MTO for ORBA of the most common errors recently made in O/O permit applications. If you have any questions, please contact Nadia Todorova ([email protected] 905-507-1107 ext 225).




May 26, 2015 Bulletin # 60-15

Reminder: Register for Summer Round Up The warmer weather is (finally!) here and it looks to be a fantastic evening for the Summer Round Up on June 10. We look forward to all members attending this great event filled with good food, drinks and conversation. Summer Round Up Details Date: Wednesday, June 10 Time: 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Tickets: $59 plus HST (includes food and drink) Location: Sarcoa Restaurant, 57 Discovery Drive, Hamilton Registration: orba.org/roundup Thank you to B2W Software and Nortrax Canada Inc. for their sponsorships. Bermingham Facility Tour Once again, our presenting sponsor, Bermingham Foundation Solutions, is hosting a Manufacturing Facility Tour before the Summer Round Up. All members are welcome to attend the tour of the 60,000 sq. ft. facility. Please RSVP at the email below. Tour Details Date: Wednesday, June 10 Time: 4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Location: Building D – 580 Ferguson Avenue North, Hamilton (located a few minutes from Sarcoa Restaurant) RSVP:[email protected] If you have any questions, please contact Richard Stamper at [email protected] or 905-507-1107, ext. 222.

http://orba.org/functions-events/summer-round-up





June 2, 2015 Bulletin # 61-15

P3 Connect Conference P3 Connect, America’s national conference for public-private partnerships, has become a premier event for public-sector officials and private-sector innovators focused on P3s. Last year, P3 Connect attracted more than 250 attendees, representing more than 100 public and private sector organizations. This year’s event includes a “P3 Bootcamp”, an introductory-level workshop for public and private sector representatives who are interested in P3s but may be unfamiliar with how they work. Workshop faculty will cover: how P3s differ from traditional privatization and procurement; alternative P3 structures; use of P3s for financing projects; identification and allocation of risks; understanding what P3s can and cannot help communities accomplish; and how to develop and maintain a productive partnership.

Date: Monday, July 20 to Wednesday, July 22 Location: Boston, MA Registration: Non-member, private sector US$995 More information: http://p3connect15.ncppp.org/ There is an opportunity for ORBA to negotiate a group discount on the registration fee. Please let us know as soon as possible if you plan on attending or have already registered. If you have any questions, please contact Richard Stamper at [email protected] or 905-507-1107, ext. 222.

http://p3connect15.ncppp.org/





Join Transit Alliance for The Big Debate

On June 16, members are invited to join the Transit Alliance as they host a debate over the importance of transit operations or infrastructure expansion. The following group of speakers and panelists will be on hand to answer questions at the event. Speakers Keynote: Journalist, Diane Francis Moderator: Brian Crombie, Crombie Capital Panelists Jennifer Keesmaat, Chief Planner, Toronto Bruce McCuaig, CEO Metrolinx Adam Giambrone, Exec. Transit Director, City of Milwaukee Stephen Damp, Ellis Don Jim Tully, Munro Ltd. Event: The Big Debate: Transit Operations or Infrastructure Expansion? Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Location: Cody Hall, St. Paul's Bloor Street, 227 Bloor Street East, Toronto, ON M4W 1C8 Registration: Register at Transit Alliance: The Big Debate Non-member $50.00 (enter promotional code unlockgridlock when purchasing tickets) The Transit Alliance is a non-political organization for those who work in the transit industry, students, or those interested in transit and transit planning in cities across Southern Ontario.

http://www.unlockgridlock.ca/the-big-debate/#sthash.9kBMnE8D.dpbs




Changes to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act – Road Building Industry

As a follow up to ORBA bulletin #56-15, the road building industry exceptions and special rules as they relate to the Employment Standards Act still apply. ORBA has put together a chart with the complete list of exemptions for road building. A chart of the exemptions is attached to this bulletin. It may be useful to circulate this list of exemption in workplaces where appropriate. If you have any questions, please contact Nadia Todorova ([email protected] or 905-507-1107 ext 223).




Summer Round Up Only a Week Away! We are pleased the Hon. Steven Del Duca, Minister of Transportation, will be joining us for the Summer Round Up on June 10. Over 140 members have already confirmed their attendance for this great event filled with good food, drinks and conversation. Come on out and join us! Summer Round Up Details Date: Wednesday, June 10 Time: 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Tickets: $59 plus HST (includes food and drink) Location: Sarcoa Restaurant, 57 Discovery Drive, Hamilton Registration: orba.org/roundup

Bermingham Facility Tour Once again, our presenting sponsor, Bermingham Foundation Solutions, is hosting a Manufacturing Facility Tour before the Summer Round Up. All members are welcome to attend the tour of the 60,000 sq. ft. facility. Please RSVP at the email below. Tour Details Date: Wednesday, June 10 Time: 4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Location: Building D – 580 Ferguson Avenue North, Hamilton (located a few minutes from Sarcoa Restaurant) RSVP: [email protected] If you have any questions, please contact Richard Stamper at [email protected] or 905-507-1107, ext. 222.

http://orba.org/functions-events/summer-round-up






Government of Ontario passes the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act,

2014

On June 4, the government of Ontario passed Bill 6 – Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, 2014. The Act encourages strategic long-term infrastructure planning through five key components:

Long-term planning – requiring the province to table and maintain a 10 year long-term

infrastructure plan

Guiding Principles – maximize the value of infrastructure investments, promote

innovation, competitiveness and job creation

Project prioritization – the province would consider giving priority to infrastructure

proposals that align with provincial plans

Skills training and apprenticeship – the province would employ or engage apprentices in

the construction or maintenance of certain provincial infrastructure projects.

ORBA is pleased with the passing of the Act as it would encourage long-term infrastructure planning and economic growth. ORBA worked closely with the government to addresses issues it had with the initial prescriptive approach and language in the Bill to set a threshold of apprentices to be employed or engaged on construction projects. ORBA’s belief was that threshold based approaches can create artificial short term opportunities for apprentices that do not last beyond the project. ORBA had concerns around the establishment, application and enforcement of a threshold model in the construction industry.


ORBA worked with the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure to see the following amendments made to Section 8(2) of the Bill: Commitment re intended use of apprentices

(2) A bidder that enters into a procurement process for the construction or maintenance by the Government of an infrastructure asset shall, in the prescribed circumstances, provide to the Government as part of the procurement process a commitment respecting the intended use of apprentices in the construction or maintenance in the event of a successful bid.

The less prescriptive and more general language allows greater autonomy for both government and industry to promote apprenticeship based on each individual project, procurement model, type of construction and ultimately buyer of construction services. Please find attached ORBA’s submission on the Bill as well as the government’s news release on the passing of the Act. If you have any questions, please contact Ashley De Souza ([email protected] or 905-507-1107 ext 223).





Infrastructure Ontario Released Its Spring 2015 Market Update

Infrastructure Ontario (IO) has released an updated list of its pipeline of projects. There are a total of 23 projects on the list with five projects in the transportation and civil sectors, including the Highway 427 expansion, Highway 401 High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, and Hurontario and Finch LRTs. Eglington Crosstown continues in the procurement phase and is progressing towards the potential start of construction in 2015. IO has implemented the Certification of Recognition (COR) program and has begun pilot projects aimed at increasing the participation of registered apprentices in construction on AFP projects. IO along with the Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure are working to implement all recommendations from the Auditor General’s 2014 annual report. Attached to this bulletin is the complete list of IO infrastructure and real estate projects. If you have questions about this bulletin, please contact Ashley De Souza ([email protected] or 905-507-1107 ext. 223).

http://orba.org/system/documents/documents/3564/original/_62-14_Auditor_General_Report.pdf?1418737285





ORBA One Call / Locates Task Force

Utility locates is an important issue to ORBA members and as such ORBA will be putting together an ORBA One Call/Locates Task Force. The task force will look at the issues members are experiencing with locates and discuss solutions and possible ways ORBA members can work with One Call to resolve issues. If you would like to participate, please contact Karen Walker ([email protected] or 905-507-1107 ext 226).




CCA Drug and Alcohol Policy Resource Material

In an effort to assist companies in meeting their human resources objectives and effectively addressing drug and alcohol-related issues, the CCA has prepared a generic, customizable, Drug and Alcohol Policy, as well as a Fact Sheet on Employee Assistance Programs. Impairment in the workplace caused by drug and alcohol use compromises safety and poses a grave risk to construction companies. Navigating the complexity of an ever-evolving legal landscape with respect to drug and alcohol policies and testing, in the context of human resources, human rights, privacy, labour law and employment law issues, is an ongoing challenge for companies that strive to balance competing imperatives. These resources are intended to serve as guidelines for companies who want to develop a drug and alcohol program in their workplace. The CCA is not promoting any policy or program. The guide has been drafted for the purpose of offering companies that do not currently have a policy the opportunity to adopt it as a minimum standard, and customize it according to their needs. It features many of the common elements found among the Canadian Model and other policies. Variations in policies may be warranted depending on the laws affecting a company, as well as its size, specialty, capacity, and general interests.

The purpose of the Fact Sheet on Employee Assistance Programs is to offer guidance to companies dealing with employees in need of support to overcome drug and alcohol issues.

The contents of these resources are for information purposes only, and to not constitute legal advice. Companies are advised to seek legal counsel prior to acting on any matters discussed in these resources.

The guide is available on the ORBA website and is a prime example of the value of ORBA participation and membership in the CCA.

http://orba.org/issues-information/health-safety/cca-drug-alcohol-resource-guide




“Keeping Ontario Moving” Book Release

“Keeping Ontario Moving, The History of Roads and Road Building in Ontario”, which takes readers through an exciting historical road trip, is now available for purchase at orba.org. The 432-page, beautifully illustrated, hard cover book includes virtually every facet of the road building industry in Ontario, from labour relations to safety, politics to financing. The early story of roads and road building is recorded from many reference materials, but from the 1930s forward, it is told largely by the people who lived and created our history. Over 120 contractors, engineers, government officials and others were interviewed and the last 80 years of the industry’s past unfolds in the way they remember it. They share their memories and stories as they talk about their projects, their businesses, their successes and hardships. "The book documents the history and evolution of our industry from its beginnings right through to where we are today. It is written in a unique way with stories from industry legends of today and ‘yester-year’,” says Geoff Wilkinson, ORBA Executive Director. “Our members and others in the industry will definitely want to order more than just one book for their coffee table. Anyone that picks it up and starts to read it will not want to put it down and more than likely will want a copy of their own. It is that good.” Rob Bradford, who took on authoring the project after retiring as ORBA’s Executive Director in 2012, commented, “The challenge was to produce something interesting to the layman and to the seasoned road builder. I think we’ve found the right balance that offers a good reference source as well as a good read.” The concept for the book is credited to ORBA Past President Les Cruickshank (1992) who worked diligently alongside a committed committee to see this idea through to its final publication this past spring. “In the beginning, the idea was to interview ’old-timers‘ to get their stories, collect old photos and documents and then publish a book starting with the beginning of transportation in Ontario,” explained Cruickshank.




2015-2017 MTO DB and CMGC Project Listing

Please find attached the current listing of MTO’s Design Builds (DB) and Construction Manager General Contractor (CMGC) projects for 2015-2017. The list is also available on our website.

http://orba.org/mto/capital-program




Struck-by incidents and heavy equipment

For workers on foot, a busy jobsite where heavy equipment and machinery is constantly on the move can be a very dangerous place. Every year, workers are killed and injured from being struck by heavy equipment and machinery. For workers in road building, there is an increased risk of this hazard. The Civil Engineering Sector Labour-Management Health and Safety Committee in partnership with IHSA has put together a booklet to reduce struck-by incidents when working around heavy equipment, reversing vehicles, and moving machinery. As a member of the Civil Committee, ORBA provided input and was involved in the development of the booklet, which can be found here. If you have any questions, please contact Nadia Todorova ([email protected] or 905-507-1107 ext 225).

http://www.ihsa.ca/pdfs/products/id/IHSA046.pdf





Meet You on the Red Carpet! Save the Date! This year’s Ladies’ Evening will be taking place on Saturday, October 17, at the Ritz-Carlton in Toronto. We look forward to meeting you on the red carpet! More information including registration details will follow.




Winter Highway Maintenance Action Plan On June 26, the MTO's Winter Highway Maintenance Action Plan was released in response to the Auditor General of Ontario's report on winter highway maintenance. The plan lays out how the province will continue to improve winter road conditions, keep drivers better informed and increase oversight of winter maintenance contractor performance. The full MTO Winter Highway Maintenance plan is available by clicking here. More information is available in the media release sent out by the Ministry of Transportation. Over the next month, ORBA will be releasing a response to the Auditor General's Winter Highway Maintenance Report. If you have any questions, please contact Geoff Wilkinson ([email protected] or 905-507-1107 ext. 224).

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/winterhighway_en.pdf

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/ontario-511/winter-maintenance-action-plan.shtml

http://news.ontario.ca/mto/en/2015/06/taking-action-to-keep-ontarios-highways-safe-in-winter.html




July 6, 2015 Bulletin # 74-15

Applications for Funding for Cycling Infrastructure Now Open

As a follow up to ORBA bulletin #37-15, applications are now open for the Ontario Municipal Cycling Infrastructure Program and the cycling Training Fund. The programs are designed to encourage cycling across the province. As part of Ontario’s 20 year #CycleON strategy, $10 million will be made available through the Ontario Municipal Cycling Infrastructure Program to help municipalities build new or improve cycling infrastructure, such as signed bicycle routes with paved shoulders, separated bicycle lanes with physical barriers, bicycle-only or multi-use paths, and bicycle traffic control devices. Expressions of interest are open until August 6, 2015.

Additionally, $380,000 will also be made available to municipalities, non-profits, businesses, schools and

school boards for the Cycling Training Fund to develop, enhance and deliver cycling skills training

programs. Applications are open until September 4, 2015.

ORBA expressed its support for the expansion of cycling infrastructure in the province and its submission to the government on this proposal in October 2014 and noted that a predictable long-term funding plan is a key component in attaining sustainable infrastructure development throughout the province. If you have any questions, please contact Nadia Todorova ([email protected] or 905-507-1107 ext 225).

http://orba.org/system/documents/documents/3682/original/_37-15_Support_for_Cycling_Infrastructure.pdf?1427983144

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/ontario-municipal-cycling-infrastructure-program.shtml

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/ontario-municipal-cycling-infrastructure-program.shtml

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/cycling-training-fund.shtml




July 6, 2015 Bulletin # 75-15

Building Information Modeling (BIM) Survey In partnership with Metrolinx, ORBA is requesting feedback from its Contractor members on their experience with software use and readiness for implementing Building Information Modeling (BIM) in Transportation Projects for the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA). The BIM survey is available by clicking here. Please complete the questionnaire no later than Friday, July 10, 2015. The survey will take between 5 – 10 minutes to complete. We appreciate your feedback and taking the time to complete the survey. Your input is important to us. If you have any questions, please contact Richard Stamper ([email protected] or 905-507-1107 ext. 222).

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/X3RY2QV


member b u l l e t i n - home - ontario road builders ... keeping ontario moving member b u l l e t...

Documents