This is the downside of awarding construction work to the lowest bidder.
I'm sure many construction projects in this city could be completed faster if more money was spent on construction (either for better contractors or 24-hour construction).
The question is how do we want to spend our money?
The problem is probably not the contractor, but the contract. Apparently,
there is no firm deadline in the Roncesvalles contract, according to the BIA. If the system allows for flexible deadlines, then we should expect all rational contractors to bid on jobs with the expectation of dividing their attentions across several projects in the area, as would seem to be the case here.
Gord MacMillan, City director of design and construction,
told the Globe the City charges $500 to $2000 a day in "administration costs" for projects that go past the designated completion date. Does anybody know what these administration costs could possibly be? And if it costs the contractor an extra say, $50,000, if the construction goes past deadline by 60 days, is that a lot? Do such penalties create meaningful incentives for the contractor to finish on time? Because if they do, then why were there so many days when no crews worked on Roncesvalles, despite good weather?
And let's not forget Enbridge. Roncy could have had two-way traffic back in October, but instead,
Enbridge held up construction in the north end for over two months while it figured out what to do about its gas mains. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that by law, these utilities have some sort of right-of-access, and they need not ask permission from the City when it wants to dig, or coordinate with the City when the street is being dug up anyway. If true, that's another aspect of the system that needs to change.
