Thread by @OccTranspo

Day 2
#OttawaLRT Commission Live Tweet Mega Thread

Today Guests:
- Rob Pattison (Infrastructure Ontario) – Morning
- Marian Simulik (City of Ottawa) – Afternoon

#Ottawa

ottawalrtpublicinquiry.ca/public-hearing…

So we now begin. We start be talking about AFP's and cost over runs and procurement process - and the role of Infrastructure Ontario.

Now we are getting into the muddy waters of P3.

Rob Pattison (witness) states designing, building and maintaining doesn't make a P3. It is the financing model that separates it from a traditional bid and build model.

Council looks like he is trying to hammer home if IO (Infra-Ontario) was peddling or leading people into P3's back in 2011.

The witness didn't know, but in his projects, he was using P3's

Benefits of P3
- Risks of poor execution, empty promises, building inferior products and criminal activity are held against financing being withhold for the bid/builder (performance security)
- Stops cheap building. as you will get punished as you are forced to maintain.

Benefits of P3
- Building of services give integration and coordination.
- Gives financial incentive to do well and not cut corners/run as the punishment will flow back to them for any overlook
- Takes away leverage from builders to force the hand of the public purse.

More conversations about finances and pressure caused by interest and all that jazz.

Counsel (if I can remember to spell it right) is really chasing this thread that financing is a tool to force compliance - and thus this "pressure" could open the door for people to cut corners

Of course... we covered this.

But, that is why the P3 model then punishes if you decide to take drastic measures.

Counsel is trying to paint the picture that the 'pressure to preform' is driving people to bad decisions.

It is almost like running a business requires effort...

Witness reminds counsel, in no so many words, that is why we do risk assessments and read the "performance requirements" section of contact we sign.😂

Not rocket appliances.

Counsel continues to fish for the witness to say "Yes, financial pressure can force people to make bad choices. Thus if the city is leaning into private, they will be forced to go evil"

It is almost business is driven by financials and that going bankrupt is undesirable...

Now counsel is getting hostile, upset he can't lead the message to 'because the city can stonewall the development, but the financial pressure continues, thus they will forced to go evil'

Ignoring the contract, the city signed. Both sides agreed to have responsibilities...

Rob Pattison, just said what I just typed. He isn't taking the BS the counsel is trying to paint.

I didn't expect that counsel was allowed to be this adversarial or leading - but I honestly don't know the rules of procedure for a commission.

Now we are on break. Nothing much transpired in the last 25m just a lot of fishing.

More about payments and schedules, now. Same fishing from counsel.

Just had a long convo offline with a friend about this. Would love a more detailed nuanced converstation, but Twitter limits won't allow for a complex conversation.

Plus I'm not good talking to myself 😂

City is back asking the right questions (paraphrased):
- Did they seem incompetent?
- Did you have any concerns that they couldn't handle the job of this size or were ever shown not to be competent?
- Did anyone seem incompetent?

To which Infra Ontario comes back as, nope, nope and nope.

Obviously aiming to blast more holes in one side of the narrative/defense of RTG.

Also a nice point - that even though the business model was slightly new - it was not alarming and in fact they are continuing to use it.

And getting to the right point.

That the concept of a business will:
- Blindly take on risks they can't meet
- They are somehow financially incapable
- That they don't price in risk
- They don't make plans
- They don't try to leverage the goverment

Is trash.

Following up that the project agreement, the business system and everything surrounding - enforces and codifies these ideas.

There is no way RTG signed a 35y agreement, not knowing they are signing a 35y agreement.

Insurance covers risks you cannot plan or afford to plan for.

Projects set a minimum to protect all parties, but there is no restriction of a party getting more.

On geo tech, all parties chose highest risk. City warned and provisioned against risks, even allowing for less risk

Smart play by the city.

Sometimes when you do project, sometimes bidders don't show up and you as the project writer, need to reformulate.

In the case of the city, did that happen? nope.

Meaning, that would illude that the project is well priced (advantageous to the bidder).

The city even had a 'white paper' process where bidders could state what they could/couldn't/wouldn't do.

and in that process, things too prescriptive were removed? Yep.

and that this system was effective and without problems? Yep.

RIP RTG Defense.

Getting a master class in "Leaving a paper trail to cover you ass in case this all blows up and goes to trial".

You know to do it, but this a great clear illustration of why.

If the city took less steps to the benefit of time and the bidders, all this evidence wouldn't exist.

Now we are getting into the muddled waters of contacts.

Trying to argue that a contact can't cover all outcomes and all plans.

Now we are trying to weasel of the basis of contract law.

IO Rob, isn't taking the bait.

IO Rob, points out that what is the point of contact if you claim it should all be negotiable. Everyone would just bid a dollar and just wing it.

STV Michael, claims that a "fair owner" will not be such a stickler to a contact.

What a defense. City should have been nicer...

'Hey I know I didn't deliver what you paid for, and we didn't follow the contact, but hey - can we get more money and can you be nicer to us'

STV is trying to paint that the city was being a jerk.

STV now leading with "Should two people in a project not be adversarial with each other"

Well no shit in any industry... but, you have a contact and obligations...

IO Rob, comes from a contact law background - he knows what he is talking about. Not taking the BS bait.

RTG/OLRTC/RTM is trying to paint the picture that their purpose built companies (for this project) suffer hardships when their money gets cut off.

Overlooking the reason they do this is so they can default and run, without hurting the parent.

Two way street corpo...

Lol and IO Rob just tells him his views are silly and he departs the convo.

The previous STV references were RTG he was miss labeled today.

This is STV

Now we're taking a technical break due to a missing document. Nothing really has transpired between now and the last post.

Was making food, didn't see/hear much of importance. Missed the last tiny bit. Seemed mostly about finances.

A bit of a health break, more deeply into finances now. It'll be worth a rewatch of today's livestream to catch the finer details.

I'm getting a good lesson in the shell game of gov finances.

A key takeaway that the city was no fool when writing up this budget.

Counsel roughly asks "why didn't you afford more contingency money". The City replies "why would we finance out the wazoo and pay all this interest charges, when we likely won't need the money? And we are not getting value for the risks we are taking on?"

Sanity at City Hall 🙏

"Did the city at any point have conversations that the budget would be insufficient"? Nope

"Any fears that you will be under bidded or misled to meet budget?"

Well it is the private sector, but we hoped for the best, verified and expect professionalism. So basically, no.

City stands by the contact which is the result of all the agreements, consequences and compromises to get to an agreement - which NO ONE SIGNED UNDER DURESS 😂

So the conversation continues on financials.

A very civil conversation going over the details of all the different roles that the city and the project bidder operated in.

Lots of needless smoke and mirrors.

Commission wants the city to admit that when they became the long term lender, they gained leverage to coerce RTG.

Except as the City points out, the contract states the terms and conditions - which define the role, be it from the city, or from the a bank.

But by a long stretch you could argue that now with more evidence and information the city can make more decisions to the benefit of itself.

Which is where they're trying to go.

But it's a pretty flimsy argument.

RTG: "You wanted to get money from [us] whenever we didn't provide service?"

Paraphrased City: "No shit. Not having the not LRT run causes incredible costs to the city that we have to manage. Let alone it's public."

I'm liking this feisty lady from the city ❤️

RTG argument now is 'after we screwed up royally, stonewalled, and held a city hostage - We've noticed that the dialogue between the Council and us, became hostile and you got upset with us'

In what world do people have no emotion when you screw them royally and ghost? 🤣

In all honestly, I had better defense and cross-examinations in my high school legal and college debate class than this.

I presume these people are fairly well paid lawyers. So either they're not that great, what they're working with is a turd.

I'm going to go with the latter

This is Marian Simulik (City of Ottawa) for the record. Feisty and holding her ground well.

The man, the myth, the legend is back and starts by having Marian state her credentials.

Masters in Business admin and was the City Treasurer.

Soft balling now counter arguments. Nothing too important yet.

Nothing too important in his questioning. Just clarifications and leading the witness to get words right.

Commented on the "City seeking remedy" complaint by RTG.

Points out that it was clearly listed, in the agreed upon contract, and city had every right to do so.

Exactly...

And that concludes today. We're back at it at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

Only a moderate loss of brain cells today, courtesy of RTG arguably pathetic defense.

I'm still not sold on their interpretation of contracts.