Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The first thing that struck me is that there are 13 floors to this apartment building for this restoration project. That is a large scale project with a big potential profit for the GC. What wasn’t mentioned is where is the safety officer in all this? Any construction job of this scale would be required to have a safety officer to ensure the job site was safe for employees working and met all building codes, fire codes, health and safety requirements, met trade union regulations etc. If Vasco had brought these concerns to the safety officer, the job would have been shut down until there was a safe working environment or as mentioned ensure there were staff set up for fire watch . A GC accepts any and all liability for the job site as they have to regularly report back to the client on projects progress, if the job over or under budget, discuss change orders etc. If a sub brings a safety concern to their attention and they ignore it, the GC bares that risk. Vasco should have not continued with the work and by doing so should be held to have partial liability.
I agree Adrienne that in the chain of command, the GC is ultimately liable for the job site. Bringing in Vasco based on his skill at his trade was a smart decision but ignoring safety concerns to complete a job is irresponsible and continuing to work knowing its unsafe is also irresponsible.
I agree Veronica, that both parties hold some liability for the fire but without thorough review of the contract we can only speculate on what the actual details were if there in fact was anything more than an informal agreement.
I agree Joseph, the contract the GC had with the customer would have detailed the risk, its unclear if Vasco had a contract or not. Being a sub he should have.
Many of the bid preparation steps hold so much value right from selection of team members that represent all sides of what you are going to market for. Having the final draft of solicitation documents vetted by a department like compliance or enablement prior to posting. One large lesson learned is the value of providing accurate details of what the actual expectations are for the awarded vendor. Not only a specific number of monthly inspections they are to complete but add pricing lines to cover hourly costs for breakdowns and repairs as and when needed. Including the age of the current machines, what if any warranty still remains, how long they are typically in service and what if any replacement plans there are for the life of the contract are all details that lead to solid submissions that can be properly evaluated. EG Spence is well within their right to challenge this award.
I completely agree that award challenges and litigation tie up valuable time and resources and in many cases completely avoidable but implementing checks and balances prior to posting.
Nicole and Melissa, I also pulled out my calculator and did my own evaluation. I also agree that there is merit to a question period for vendors to submit questions to clarify content of Annex A could have caught the omission and an amendment would have resolved this prior to bid submission.
I agree Veronica, there would be lots of lessons learned via a thorough review and document those for future RFP’s and possibly use as a training guide for new employees for what not to do.
I think to go back even farther, the procurement document, from what we saw in the fall out of award, renewal and litigation was lacking the necessary details and processes that could have changed the outcome of the award. When you go to market for a good or service, you have to give vendors a 360 view of what you need and why, plus when the contract is formed include all the finite details and expectations. For example, when carpet was needed, both the site representative and installer should have met at the location where the carpet was needed, both measured and signed off on those measurements. Site would then issue a work order to the vendor and the vendor would return a copy with the anticipated cost based on the measurements and estimated installation date. On the installation day, the site representative should have been there at the beginning and at the end to verify the work was completed, what was done with the waste, or better yet taken pictures of the waste and signed off on the work order. The vendor would use that signed work order to invoice the customer. Plus having a process to verify the invoice against the work order prior to payment would have also helped the situation. It is so important to have remedies for how to handle disputes built into your contracts as well.
Agreed, compliance checks, follow ups, and proper contract management would have gone a long way in this particular contract. As mentioned many times by others planning is so key to managing any contract.
I completely agree that contract management would have been helpful in identifying any issues could have possibly avoided the renewal and the litigation. Contract Management is so necessary regardless of the value of the procurement.
There are several hospitals in the province that have this model and each vary, some are straight lease costs to have the space and that space is in a prime location in the hospital such as the main lobby. Others are no lease costs but the hospital foundation receives a percentage of sales. Some offer catering services for staff events as well.
Over the years I have seen several successful uses of outsourcing. One of which is bringing in a food franchise. They offer different menu items than the hospital cafeteria’s do. They still have to follow the dietary protocol established by each RHA but often have extended hours outside the hours of the hospital cafeterias to allow not only staff but patients and their families food options other than vending machines. The model is set up that the franchise leases the space within the hospital, the outsourced company must follow the policies of the facilities (such as but not limited to health and safety, confidentiality, Active Offer, etc) but their staff become part of the hospital and they are active members of the team.
I agree Tera, more collaboration is needed to come up out of the box ideas/solutions to every day problems. Over the years the RHA’s have brought in employees to brainstorm solutions or alternatives ways of doing things but often the mindset is this is how we’ve always done versus how we could do it. Bringing in an outside resource provides a different perspective.
