In regard to this site that was located, I know there’s going to be a request for a cost to clean up the old Arctic College site. There again, there was a request for proposal. There were no takers.
There is also concern in regard to environmental contamination. Has a study been done on the environmental contamination on the site to be remediated for this building to be built?
Yes, we had an environmental assessment done on the building. The Member may recall when we did the RFP. The original proposal considered having the proponent demolish the building, clean up the site and then provide a leased building for the government. We are going to be doing that. We’re proposing to do that ourselves.
We have an idea of what the assessment is. There was a project in Education, Culture and Employment through the supplemental appropriation that was previously considered by the House a couple of weeks ago and put into ’08–09. So there’s about $3.75 million allocated for the demolition and remediation of that site. There’s a separate project here for Public Works and Services to build an office building on that site.
In regard to the environmental assessment was there any detection of environmental hazardous contaminants such as lead paint or any other types of hazardous products that are in the existing facility that’s being retrofitted?
I have not read the assessment myself, but given the age of the building, I’m pretty certain that there’ll be lead paint and asbestos in that building.
Can the deputy minister tell me what the government’s plans are to dispose of these hazardous materials that are in that facility? There is a cost in regard to disposal. Has the cost to remediate this site been taken into consideration?
Yes, the total cost of the demolition and remediation of that site is in the allocation I spoke of earlier. It’s in the $3.75 million range. We will have to dispose of those hazardous materials in accordance with the regulations everybody must follow when disposing of hazardous materials.
As we all know, the Gwich’in have an MOU with the Government of the Northwest Territories in regard to contracts. There’s presently a major capital project being constructed in Inuvik, yet a lot of the Gwich’in companies have not been able to take advantage of that contract.
I’d like to know, in regard to the Gwich’in MOU, will the Gwich’in have an opportunity to look at the possibility of taking on some of this work under that MOU we have, to allow them the opportunity to bid on this work and also through a negotiated contracting policy?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The opportunity is there within the MOU for the Gwich’in to request that involvement.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on the list is Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For this project that’s being proposed, how long has this project been in the capital plan?
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the first year that this project has been in the capital plan. If the Member recalls, we did ask for $500,000 that was allocated to this project in ’08–09 to be accelerated into ’08–09. This is really the first time that the standing committee or this House would have seen this project in the plan.
So this is something that came up as a need as a result of a structural failure in a different Inuvik building that was being leased then, and that’s what brought this about. How many square feet were being leased versus how much is being created now in the government’s inventory here for lease?
I don’t have that information with me today, but I’d be happy to provide it to the Member and the committee.
Thank you. Have any negotiations or contracts been entered into for this project to date?
No.
Does the Minister or the deputy minister anticipate that there’s going to be a negotiated contract for the construction of this building?
Our intention is to put out a request for proposals for a design/build approach. Thank you.
For the record, that will be a competitive process for this piece of infrastructure. We keep saying: well, this project’s too big to put out to a competitive bidding process. This is one that I would imagine would be of a size that there could potentially be construction companies that could manage the bonding, and they would have capacity to deal with this.
I guess what I’m getting at is I’m just worried about losing track of what the market rates actually are if we do not continue as a government to try and procure capital through a competitive bidding process. I just want to confirm that…. Well, let me ask this: why is it going to RFP versus tender?
We’re using a design/build approach, which would necessitate an RFP versus a tender. We’re leaving it up to the contractor or the private sector to determine and give us some ideas about how they would approach the project to see if we can get some innovation in the solution that way rather than specifically stating what we want and how we want it to be done, which we would do through our traditional construction contract. It’s just a different way to achieve the same thing. It’s just a different approach, but it’s the design/build approach. Rather than splitting the design and the construction up, this will combine it and see what proposals the private sector can offer us.
Just in terms of the RFP I’d like to know if the RFP has already been drafted and the terms of the RFP. I would like to know if any points will be awarded for a building that would be modern in terms of energy efficiencies.
No, the RFP has not been drafted. The answer to the second question is that the design criteria will be the GNWT design criteria with respect to energy management and energy efficiency, as we put a high priority on that. It won’t necessarily be an option; it will be a requirement, a minimum requirement that everybody will have to meet, and if you do well, then you’ll score better.
I would like to know if that is a standard policy of this government now when going to the private sector for design/build or for construction design. With any kind of infrastructure that we are building in the government, is it now mandatory to have an element of energy efficiency built into those projects — a solid policy?
Our design criteria, Good Building Practice for Northern Facilities, has minimum standards for energy efficiency that generally will exceed the eco standard that the federal government puts out. For all our new construction we have the standard that has to be met or exceeded.
When Mr. Aumond speaks of a standard, is he referring to a standard that has been specifically detailed to consider the northern climate and the environment here, or is this just a national eco standard that he is referring to that would be the same as if you were building something in downtown Calgary?
Our design standards are for subarctic or arctic environments. It is something we have designed for ourselves and implemented here that will exceed anything that you would see down South.
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Any further questions? Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Aumond mentioned that they were approved for $500,000 in the previous budget. Could you tell me exactly what the $500,000 was spent on, and has it been expended?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Aumond.
The $500,000 for ’08–09 was just approved about two weeks ago by the House, and we have not yet spent any money.
Could Mr. Aumond elaborate on exactly what the $500,000 is going to be used for?
For preliminary design work.
That answer was really helpful. I would like to ask Mr. Aumond to elaborate a little more on exactly what the $500,000 is going to be spent for.
The $500,000 will be spent on work to undertake design development for the building so that we can get it to the stage where we can put an RFP out so that proponents will have an idea about what it is we are looking for, how we see it sitting on the land that we propose to put it on and so that we can solicit proposals to complete the design and construction of that project.
In regard to the $17 million that is going to be expended or had to be approved for this year, what is the construction timeframe you’re looking at here? Are you going to construct it over a year, three years, five years? What type of a timeframe are you looking at in regard to constructing such a facility?
For ’09–10 we are looking for $12 million for this project and not the $17.2 million as the total for the activity for the division. We expect that this winter we will knock down the building, the old Aurora College site, and that will be used for the other allocation I spoke to earlier. We will spend the $500,000 in remaining ’08–09 to get to this design development, and we hope that by December or January we will have an RFP out and that we can commence our design and construction in ’09–10.
In regard to the urgency of this project and the timelines that we’re looking at, I’d just like to ask the Minister: where does the priority of capital projects fit by way of urgency in regard to other types of capital projects? I’ll use as an example water treatment facilities for communities. For me that’s an urgent capital project. Most of these projects will not see the light of day until 2010, yet they were approved in previous years. I find it kind of interesting that this project happened to be fast tracked, moved to the front of the line, and is going to be constructed prior to essential infrastructure for communities by way of water treatment facilities.
I’d like to ask the Minister of Finance what due diligence was done here in regard to ensuring that we establish the priorities that this government needs to implement infrastructure across the Territories, to see where the real emergencies are so that we can deal with those pressures that are out there. Again, how does this project come by way of emergency, overriding other projects such as water treatment facilities?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This project didn’t override other projects. It was brought forward because of the pressing nature of the requirement. The bundled water treatment plants have a schedule. They are going to be completed probably before this records storage building, and they are proceeding with all speed possible.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regard to Diamond Jenness I saw the report on that facility, and it is amazing that people allow students to go to that facility. That to me is an essential project. But in regard to this project I think it basically does not really meet the standard of essential by way of real infrastructure.
This government can spend its capital dollars as a result of a private sector that is already in the market that provides space in Inuvik. I want departments to have their own office — something that the Inuvik region has been fighting for, for years — but they would not support the private sector and private market in Inuvik. Nowadays they are competing against them. I think that shows us exactly where the priority of this government is going. I would like to ask: where does the Diamond Jenness School stand in line with an office building for department staff versus children in a community such as Hay River?
The one issue that is now before the Diamond Jenness project is the completion of educational programming by the Department of Education, Culture and Employment that will allow this project to move forward.
At the appropriate time, Mr. Chair, I would like to move a motion to defer this project.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger? To the next person on the list. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you. Just some quick calculations here, Mr. Chairman. This project looks like it is coming in at about $425 per…. All right, let me take that back. Different types of uses of buildings come in at different…. Hospital costs differ per square foot from a warehouse, for example, for records storage. So I would like to ask the Minister how the government’s estimate of this particular project was determined.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The estimates that we would have come up with for the office building would have been based on what we were seeing as costs for office buildings anywhere else that we had either just built or that we saw being constructed elsewhere. Also, we would have done a community cost differential for Inuvik, say, versus what we were paying for the office building, whether it be in Fort Simpson or in Yellowknife. Looking at what is going to be in the office building, one of the major cost drivers for this building will be, I guess, the addition of a small data centre in there that was in the Perry Building and needs to go in this building. It’s just general office spaces. It’s basically a square box with a block, with a floor plate. It also includes all the tenant improvements that go into that building as well rather than just being the base building.
So at the risk of repeating myself — I may have already asked this question — please tell me if Mr. Aumond said he could get this information for me. Let me just ask again. The records storage and data centre will go in there for about 8,500 square feet. A medical clinic I think he said was going in there. I would just like to get a breakdown again of the clients or tenants proposed for this base. Is it already all spoken for? Is there going to be extra space, and are they going to be leasing out space to other people?
I’d like to get more detail on how this has come to a 47,000 square foot building, the same size as the Wal-Mart. It’s hard to believe that all these people are tucked away in other places, that all these client departments are all tucked away in other places in Inuvik. It’s a bit hard to imagine this particular consolidation of people that are just kind of out there given the fact that Mr. Aumond said there would be no tenants displaced from current leases.
The records storage building, Mr. Chair, will be a separate building that’s 793 square metres. For the office building we will have general office space for Public Works, MACA and the Financial Management Board Secretariat for 1,337 square metres. The career and income support centre, which is Education, Culture and Employment, is 502 square metres. The public health unit will be 479 square metres. There will also be a mechanical room and a building services room for 841 square metres. The data centre is going to be 167 square metres, and there is going to be an allocation of swing space, which will be circulation space that we can use to move people around, of about 249 square metres. So those are the space allocations on the program we have for this building.
