In response to my last question, the Minister of Transportation said that the contract was cancelled because the price was too high. But in a meeting I was told that the price was reasonable based on the scope of work. Which is it? I was also told that the bid bonds were wrong.
I’d like to ask the Minister: are bid bonds usually asked for in an O&M contract, and were they a requirement in the second contract that went out?
The cancellation of the contracts was based on the fact that the price almost tripled, in terms of the required work that was done.
Bid bonds are sometimes required on some of the contracts they do within the Department of Transportation. We are removing the bid bonds from the re-scoping of the new tender’s work, in that we’re not going to require bid requirements on the re-tendering of this contract.
I’d like to ask the Minister why the bid bonds weren’t required on the second contract. They’re sometimes used to eliminate small companies from bidding on work — the companies in the community that sometimes can’t afford bid bonds.
I’d like to ask him why the bid bond was removed from the second tender.
In terms of the bid bonds, the re-scoping of this tender is not stated. The original tender was for five years. This tender is now for three years, with a plus-two option.
I would have to work with the department to get the specifics on the details of the bid bonding question. And I’ll be happy to sit down with the Member and discuss it further with the department, in terms of this plus the legal question.
The time for question period has expired. I will allow the Member a supplementary question.
I’ve tried asking questions. I wasn’t getting answers that satisfied me, so I asked them in the Assembly. I was looking for some straight answers. I didn’t believe I was getting them, and I didn’t believe the reasons I was given were good enough.
I’d like to ask the Minister my final question. This is a good example of how we sometimes…. The government underestimates all our projects. And when the actual prices come in, we’re surprised. But we shouldn’t be. These people do this for a living, so they obviously know what they’re doing.
I’d like to ask the Minister if he had the authority to publicly commit to an additional 20 per cent on top of the 50 per cent that’s already guaranteed Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, that’s a hypothetical question, and I’m not too sure. I’d have to speak with my colleagues in terms of what the cabinet’s or the government’s position on this question here.
Final supplementary, Mr. McLeod.
I don’t believe I asked a hypothetical question. I’ll ask it again. Did the Minister have the authority to publicly commit an additional 20 per cent to the 50 per cent already guaranteed? That’s not hypothetical, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will see if I can get the question here. Mr. Speaker, I’m not too sure if the Member was making reference to my quote on the CBC, on the radio that I did with CBC.
In terms of the authority, certainly the Minister has some authority based on recommendations from the department. The department and the Minister will talk. The Minister will make the decision. Basically, this is an issue that needed to go back for re-tendering of the work here. That’s what we’re doing.
The time for question period has expired.
Item 9, written questions. Item 10, returns to written questions. Item 11, replies to opening address. Item 12, petitions. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 14, tabling of documents. Item 15, notices of motion. Item 16, notices of motion for the first reading of bills, Hon. Michael Miltenberger.
