The only valid suing point is how the province handle the pandemic. Being a new thing to all governments, I would say everyone is a newbie and is pretty hard to do the best thing.These are reasonable claims though. This one will go nowhere. You cant sue for act-of-god situations. Even if you argue that the provinces action because of an act-of-god situation was not adequate, its a very weak argument.
This only shows how desperate they are.
I think a lot of contracts invoked the force majeure clause due to COVID--it certainly happened with projects I am involved in, due to inability to travel freely to complete on-site work.viruses don't typically fall under act of god... it's largely for environmental disasters.
Last we heard, IO and MX were having a lot of trouble with P3 procurement, particularly around GO Expansion, because the private sector was not willing to take on the level of risk that IO/MX desired to load onto them.I presume this is an attempt to take a bite out of Verster's statement that Yonge station must be completed on the pre-covid schedule or pay penalties.
Vendors considering a bid on Ontario Line and GO Expansion will be watching this pretty closely. I'm guessing in Alliance style tenders that change of law impacting cost will be a risk Metrolinx is forced to absorb.
Well the pre-COVID schedule dictates that the line must be finished by 2021. Putting Yonge aside, do we even consider that a realistic timeline for the rest of the project? End of 2021 is just 14 months away, and several stations are still holes in the ground. I feel like mid-2022 is a more realistic goal at this point (guesstimating here)I presume this is an attempt to take a bite out of Verster's statement that Yonge station must be completed on the pre-covid schedule or pay penalties.
ML really doesn't know what they're doing is one of the biggest risk. They keep changing their minds.Last we heard, IO and MX were having a lot of trouble with P3 procurement, particularly around GO Expansion, because the private sector was not willing to take on the level of risk that IO/MX desired to load onto them.
It's not like they had much to begin with. The Presto mess tells it all.All large contracts have a claims process where the contractor asks for relief from things that went amiss, invoices for scope changes, and cost of mitigating extraordinary unforeseens, etc. Normally that happens quietly and even if there are disputes, they get arbitrated in private.
What gets a little silly is when the contract is so rigid and the in service date has such political ramification that the parties have to wrangle these things out in public with little room to compromise.
ML lost a lot of credibility when it took Bombardier to court alleging non-performance on LRT production, when ML’s real objective was to downsize its order. Now we have ML saying it will enforce the Crosstown contract to the letter.
Nobody really expects a project this big to come in on the exact promise date. I have not heard of any single large booboo by the contractor, and the known glitches (eg the discovery work at Yonge-Eglinton) are definitely unforeseens. ML ought to accept some of that risk.
All I can say is, be careful what you ask for. We want the P3 vendors to have good engineering departments, not good legal departments.
Cost is a big reason, speed and reliability is another.Why don't we just build full crossovers at every station to allow for maximum flexibility? It's cost, right?
Yikes, theres no way this lawsuit holds up in court right? If CTS claims the governments refusal to declare an "emergency" for contract terms hurts their work progress, Metrolinx can just say you guys never completed your tasks on time. Covid did nothing to hurt youCTS now suggests the COVID-19 pandemic is hurting their production. However, CTS’s lack of productivity was a problem from well before the pandemic hit. CTS has achieved their monthly production rates in only four months out of the last 26 months. Since August 2018, CTS has achieved only 72% of their planned volume of work.
We always sayThis statement is truly brilliant.
As a vendor - if you need a good legal department then you are already in trouble. Or, you are the trouble.