Public Excluded From Lansdowne Project Team Talks


This is an excerpt from the KPMG Lansdowne Report to be presented to finance committee on April 2.

Parts of the report in press release format were delivered to people in the city but not to The Bulldog. This publication received this document from a Bulldog reader. The Bulldog does not know if other media organizations were sent the Lansdowne information to be presented to finance committee.

It is unclear from the document whether councillors were part of the deliberations;


A range of delivery models were identified and, through workshops with the Project Team (consisting of representatives of both the City and OSEG), five models were shortlisted for a more detailed multicriteria assessment. The shortlisted models included traditional delivery options such as Design-BidBuild (“DBB”), Construction Management (“CM”), Construction Management at Risk (“CM@R”) and alternative models as Design-Build (“DB”), as well as more collaborative models such as Progressive Design Build.

The Project Team developed a list of evaluation criteria that focused on how the different shortlisted delivery models performed relative to core objectives of the Project. These criteria were then weighted based on their importance and alignment with the Project objectives. The criteria are described in detail in Section 3 of this report.

During multiple workshops with the Project Team, each of the shortlisted delivery models were evaluated against the criteria. Table 1 below summarizes the results of this analysis. As indicated in the table, Progressive Design Build and CM@Risk scored the highest relative to the evaluation criteria. As the scores of both models are very close, additional analysis would be appropriate to select the optimal delivery model. As DBB is the City’s usual model, it is one of the models that should also be considered for additional analysis. This additional analysis could include a quantitative assessment of the value-for-money generated by each model. In addition, a market sounding with potential bidders would help validate the market’s interest and solicit feedback on the advantages and disadvantages of each delivery model.

In addition, the Project Team assessed the impact on the various shortlisted delivery models, particularly the impact on schedule, should the Project Team continue using the services of its current architect: Brisbin Brook Beynon Architects (BBB Architects Ottawa Inc.).

A final workshop was conducted to assess whether the City of Ottawa or OSEG is better positioned to lead the delivery of the Project. It is important to note that it was determined that both the City of Ottawa and OSEG have the capacity to lead the delivery of this Project successfully. There will be further discussions moving forward to assess which entity will lead the delivery of the Project based on additional factors to be considered by the City of Ottawa.


To read the whole report, click here.


LANSDOWNE: Staff Wants Blanket Authority Over Contracts

Ottawa’s Leaders Just Can’t Lead: BENN

New Bus Routes Must Pass A Car Dealer: THE VOTER

Everything Ottawa      Full Local     Bulldog Canadian
Opinion    Comments    Breaking News    Auto
Ontario   World    Get Cheap Gas   Big Money
Pop Gossip   Your Home    Relax …   Tech
Bulldog Weather    Full Local Sports
TV/Movies   Travel
Page 2   Page 3   Page 4   Page 5   Page 6


Other features:    Full Bulldog Index    Return to Bulldog Home

2 Responses

  1. Bruce says:

    As per the city OSEG normal practice, citizens and the press are not of sufficient intelligence to participate nor even understand the complexities, but the can still foot the costs and never reap any benefits.

  2. Ron Benn says:

    Rest assured that confidentiality clauses will preclude staff from answering questions from council. Not that we have any reason to expect useful questions from councillors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Paid Content

Home   Full Bulldog Index