The details that the Minister and the deputy minister referred to that need to be worked out: are there dollar and value issues associated with those details?
The issues are to do more with issues tied to bonding issues and such.
Just as a matter of process, who would have signed off on the award of this contract?
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We gave a letter of award. We did not sign off on the award of the contract. It’s a standard practice to us when we come to an agreement on the fundamental aspects of a contract that we provide a letter of award — it’s like a letter of intent when you’re entering into a lease — subject to working out all the terms and conditions of the contract, which we have not yet done, which is why we have not yet signed the contract.
Did the letter of award subject to working out the details also include subject to the approval of this House, and did that letter of intent include a dollar value, and are we capped at that dollar value?
We are capped to the dollar value in the letter of award, and the contract is subject to the appropriation being made available by this House.
So to my question, then, just to be clear: in the letter of award is that clause included in that letter, that that is subject to the approval of this House?
No. The letter of award does not state that it’s subject to approval of the House. The contract does.
This is probably the largest capital project built in the history of our government, barring the Deh Cho Bridge, which is a P3 and a little bit different but an actual project within the purview of this government. To my knowledge this is the largest capital project ever built. Could we get some rationalization for why it was a negotiated contract as opposed to a competitive process? Were other means of procuring this project considered, like breaking it up into smaller pieces? On a negotiated contract, when the process has been described previously as having to meet with the agreement of the MLA, the mayor and the Cabinet, was the MLA who approved the negotiated contract the MLA for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Premier and the Chair of the Financial Management Board?
I’m sure there are some very pointed questions that have some possible implications here. I want to be careful. This negotiated contract process was followed. It was supported by the Gwich’in in Inuvialuit, the mayor and the folks in the region. It’s within the Gwich’in Settlement Area, where we have an agreement for contracts. It has followed due process. It was brought forward through the appropriate channels and was approved based on the support from the Inuvialuit, Gwich’in, MLAs, the mayor and all the required community people.
It’s a long period of time, so this will be end of my pointed questions. I thought pointed questions were allowed.
The question I asked previously was: were other procurement options than a negotiated contract considered for this particular capital project given its size and the cost to this government?
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we were originally planning to design the school and put it out to tender. However, as I explained in standing committee, based on our track record of, I guess, enticing competition, we knew that we ran a pretty good chance of designing the project until its completion, putting it out to tender and only having one company bid on it.
Then as we were working our way through the design process, we had a request for a negotiated contract. We went through the policy, the approvals were sought and received, and then we brought in the contractor in the early part of the project to get their input on the buildability of the project, with the intention of trying to save money. In a way it did provide some value to the design at that point. Construction costs were in excess of about $110 million. Through the use of value engineering brought forward by the contractor, we were able to get that down under a hundred million dollars for the construction. Based on previous experience, such as in Fort Good Hope when we put a design build-up for a school, we only really had one contractor. We did have a southern based contractor bid on the school, but we ended up paying a $1.3 million VIP premium on that facility. So I think we’re getting fair value if you look at what the costs are for this school versus what we’re paying for the renovation of St. Joe’s, where it’s a renovation project. You know, the cost of construction is around $6,100 to $6,200 a square metre. That cost was a given last year. Remember, we saved $9 million on that school.
The school in Inuvik is really two schools under one roof. It’s K to 12. It’s about four times the size of St. Joe’s, and St. Joe’s is about $30 million. So if you look at the ratio proportion — plus this is a cost that’s going to be carried over the next four years — I think the cost is quite reasonable given what we’re paying here in Yellowknife for construction now for St. Joe’s or what we paid in N’dilo for École Allain St-Cyr.
So to answer the MLA’s questions, we did consider other options. However, we have a process for a negotiated contract that was supported by the region and the community, and I think we’re getting decent value for the proposal that we have in front of us. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to reiterate for the record that this project is replacing Sir Alexander Mackenzie and Samuel Hearne, two fairly large schools, and as Mr. Aumond indicated, it’s going to provide the schools under one roof. Those are two large facilities. There’s a large school population. So we have to keep that in mind as well. It speaks to the size. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we report progress. Our Members are little down on this side, so I will ask to report progress, please.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Unfortunately, we do not have a quorum on the floor, so we’ll ring the bell, unless you have another comment.
Thank you. We do have a quorum. The motion is in order and not debatable.
Motion carried.
Can I have the report of the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your committee has been considering Tabled Document 93-16(2), Northwest Territories Capital Estimates 2009–2010, and would like to report progress.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the Committee of the Whole be concurred with. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. A motion is on the floor. Seconder, the honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.
Motion carried.
Mr. Speaker, Orders of the Day for Thursday, October 9, 1:30 p.m.
Prayer
Ministers’ Statements
Members’ Statements
Reports of Standing and Special Committees
Returns to Oral Questions
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery
Acknowledgements
Oral Questions
Written Questions
Returns to Written Questions
Replies to Opening Address
Petitions
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills
Tabling of Documents
Notices of Motion
Notices of Motion for First Reading of Bills
Motions
Motion 22-16(2): Extended Adjournment of the House to October 15, 2008 (Bisaro)
First Reading of Bills
Second Reading of Bills
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
MS 80-16(2): Sessional Statement
TD 93-16(2): Northwest Territories Capital Estimates 2009–2010
Report of Committee of the Whole
Third Reading of Bills
Orders of the Day
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Thursday, October 9, at 1:30 p.m.
The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.
