News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
andrewpmk said:
I wonder what the terms of the contract are. If Bombardier's contract for light rail vehicles for Metrolinx or streetcars for the TTC gets delayed more than X months, does Metrolinx or the TTC have the right to cancel it? Maybe we will end up with Siemens or Alstom LRVs on Eglinton.
Click to expand...

Good question though, as always, the cancelling of contracts needs to take into account the implications that may have on overall timeline—it's always possible that cancellation winds up delaying the process even more than Bombardier's tardiness would/will.
 
ADRM said:
Good question though, as always, the cancelling of contracts needs to take into account the implications that may have on overall timeline—it's always possible that cancellation winds up delaying the process even more than Bombardier's tardiness would/will.
Click to expand...

Most likely - but if you don't go through with cancellation or have clauses in the contract that provide hefty penalties, you are basically sending out a message that as an organization you are willing to bend even if deadlines are not met. It does not inspire compliance.

AoD
 
Given it took 9 years from the start of the tender process, to the first production vehicle, and even the worst-case scenario doesn't foresee another 9 years (2025) for completion of the contract - then I'd think that not only is it possible that cancellation will end up delaying the process - it's highly probable.

And that ignores the likely much higher cost!

Perhaps the best thing TTC could do is issue a tender for 60 additional vehicles, with an option for 200 more. While Metrolinx issues a tender for Hamilton vehicles, with an option on many more. TTC has until delivery of the 60th car to decide whether to take out another option; and that's over a year away currently.
 
For sure. Riffing off that, were financial penalties corresponding to supplier-led delays ever discussed in relation to this project?
 
nfitz said:
Given it took 9 years from the start of the tender process, to the first production vehicle, and even the worst-case scenario doesn't foresee another 9 years (2025) for completion of the contract - then I'd think that not only is it possible that cancellation will end up delaying the process - it's highly probable.

And that ignores the likely much higher cost!

Perhaps the best thing TTC could do is issue a tender for 60 additional vehicles, with an option for 200 more. While Metrolinx issues a tender for Hamilton vehicles, with an option on many more. TTC has until delivery of the 60th car to decide whether to take out another option; and that's over a year away currently.
Click to expand...

Ideally you shouldn't have to wait 9 years to come to that conclusion - there should be early "trip points" in the process whereby failures would lead to termination of contract.

AoD
 
Yes, but isn't that at the heart of the problem. They're really the only game in town. We can all say, pull the contract. Cancel the contract. Fine. But then who gets it? And would those delays in finding and re-awarding take even longer. That's the grown-up table conversation that really needs to be figured out. Whining about how Bombardier dropped the ball is a no brainer. But how do you fix it? Siemens? Who? Otherwise at this point it's just pointless whining. Getting madder and madder at Bombardier does nothing.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Their competitor? I know, it's not as ideal as one makes it to be, but clearly neither is the current arrangement, where the city is being played like a violin.
Click to expand...
That can get expensive.

http://business.financialpost.com/n...eful-tube-project-nothing-short-of-a-disaster

To paraphrase from above....

In 2011 Bombardier’s transportation division awarded a contract to London UK's signalling system. Bombardier's bid said would complete it by 2018 for 354 million pounds. Once Bombardier's screw ups were apparent, the was cancelled in 2013, costing the city 85 million pounds, or 25% of the contract cost. The contract was then awarded to Thales SA, but will five years late and cost 886 million pounds more than originally planned!

The moral of the story? Don't be blinded by a low ball bid from Bombardier, instead choose the better supplier at the onset, thus avoiding most delays and cost overruns, and pay a fair price at the beginning.
 
I don't know why everyone seems to think we were "blinded" by a low-ball bid from Bombardier, and that we should have known they'd screw it up. They've been mostly painlessly producing our transit vehicles at that factory for decades, how could we have possibly had anything but similar expectations, even with the lowest price bid?

I'm as disappointed as the next guy with Bombardier's performance here, but I think there's some revisionist history happening.

And that's not necessarily directed at Admiral Beez above, his post just reminded me of what I'm seeing all over social media, etc.
 
Admiral Beez said:
That can get expensive.

http://business.financialpost.com/n...eful-tube-project-nothing-short-of-a-disaster

To paraphrase from above....

In 2011 Bombardier’s transportation division awarded a contract to London UK's signalling system. Bombardier's bid said would complete it by 2018 for 354 million pounds. Once Bombardier's screw ups were apparent, the was cancelled in 2013, costing the city 85 million pounds, or 25% of the contract cost. The contract was then awarded to Thales SA, but will five years late and cost 886 million pounds more than originally planned!

The moral of the story? Don't be blinded by a low ball bid from Bombardier, instead choose the better supplier at the onset, thus avoiding most delays and cost overruns, and pay a fair price at the beginning.
Click to expand...

It's not the only instance - also recall the mess that is the Union Station signalling contract (or the TTC Line 1 project). Having said that, I don't think the city got any option of not going for the low ball bid so long as it is deemed compliant. We all know the moral of that particular story.

AoD
 
hawc said:
Yes, but isn't that at the heart of the problem. They're really the only game in town. We can all say, pull the contract. Cancel the contract. Fine. But then who gets it? And would those delays in finding and re-awarding take even longer. That's the grown-up table conversation that really needs to be figured out. Whining about how Bombardier dropped the ball is a no brainer. But how do you fix it? Siemens? Who? Otherwise at this point it's just pointless whining. Getting madder and madder at Bombardier does nothing.
Click to expand...

But sticking with them will almost surely ensure that they are the only game in town. You are dealing with a bit of a chicken and the egg here.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
But sticking with them will almost surely ensure that they are the only game in town. You are dealing with a bit of a chicken and the egg here.
Click to expand...

Absolutely don't think you should stick with them. But what's your solution other than moaning about the problem. Who do you suggest we go with instead? That's the big boy question. Who do you go to? Throw out some names.
 
hawc said:
Absolutely don't think you should stick with them. But what's your solution other than moaning about the problem. Who do you suggest we go with instead? That's the big boy question. Who do you go to? Throw out some names.
Click to expand...

1. CLRV rebuild - which you sort of have to do now anyways because of the delays - buys time with a degraded level of service.
2. Reopen the contract - Siemens? Alstom? Surely BBD isn't the only game around. No one is suggesting that the process is painless, convenient or even cheap, but to not do it is borderline unconscionable.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top