Here is some of the red flag material that came up in the consultant's report:
"...whether the low bid reflects the total scope of the project."
Hanscomb found LM Sauve underestimated the cost of some parts of the job and overestimated others. Some of the construction company's estimates were half that of their competitors. Other estimates were more than twice as high.Sounds like pretty fundamental stuff. Ultimately, Public Works went ahead with the contract award to Sauve after receiving some assurances but not likely enough:
West Block project director Ezio DiMillo said they took Sauve at his word that he could do the job at the price he quoted. The department didn't ask Sauve to show how he arrived at his numbers.So the Public Works people commissioned a report, saw its red flag results, questioned the contractor, decided to rely on the contractor's say-so and didn't see fit to raise it with the Minister? On a close to $10 million contract?
"We have no choice but to believe that the bid price they were carrying, that they were able to do the work for that price," DiMillo said in an interview.
"I don't remember us ever having a discussion around a particular contract that was causing grief to the department around the Hill renovations," Fortier said.(link) It's good to be Minister I guess. The same way Christian Paradis can, unbelievably, go to a fundraiser and not ask any questions at all about who was hosting it, who would be there, etc.
"Not to say that the project itself wasn't an issue. It is, because it's huge. But there were no significant issues brought to my attention relating to one particular contract."
Red flags everywhere and they still proceeded with this contract award. That is mighty high risk behaviour with the Parliament Hill renovations that just doesn't seem to add up.