Thread by @OccTranspo

Day 5 - June 17

#Ottawa Light Rail #Transit
#PublicInquiry #LiveTweet Mega Thread

🍾🎊😵

Today's guests:
Antonio Estrada (Rideau Transit Group) – Morning
Rupert Holloway (OLRT Constructors) – Afternoon

#Ottawa #OttawaLRT #OLRTCommision

ottawalrtpublicinquiry.ca/public-hearing…

Antonio of RTG starts the party off on time. He was RTG's first CEO from March 2013 to March 2018

He is (now?) working for ACS one of the construction partners.

The City approved his appointment.

Back and forth talking about how The City approves or disapproves board members.

Antonio's background is mostly in P3's

Now talking about P3's

Counsel: Did anyone have rail experience?
Antonio: Of course.

I guess they had to ask, but come on.

C: 'Do you remember you mentioned that the early construction didn't focus on system integration, and you said that construction was RTG focus?'
A: [Yes at the time. Rail and Tunneling was the focus/Priory over system integration at the very beginning]

Counsel points to this document line 3.5.5 where it says the meeting minutes in 2017 state you knew you needed oversight.

A: Replies it was less 'oversight of systems' and more 'oversight into what the hell was going on over with OLRT-C'

🤣

C: 'So things were getting bad and so why didn't you follow up and check on things?'
A: I don't know

big oof.

The sinkhole happened in the last 50m of Tunneling

It's A's opinion that sinkhole earlier in tunneling or sinkhole later in tunneling in wouldn't have made much different.

The station was a far bigger challenge

He thinks The City was happy with RTG's sinkhole response.

It looks like the reason for Counsel's questionnaire is establish pressure to preform or that The City was consistent in good faith gestures to keep the project rolling.

Not sure yet.

Feb 28 2018 Board Meetings Minutes.

Counsel pointing out that post sinkhole that The City got far more determined to stick to contact terms.

Alluding to characterization a less forgiving approach, from a The City.

A: Feels that The City was always the same, it is just after [the events causing delays], He feels higher powers stepped into the project on The City's side and thus there was a personality and relationship shift. RTG was previously interfacing with PL within The City.

A: Feels that The City taking on the long term debt caused a change. He explains that with The City mixing the role of owner and lenders - this causes problems like an example where, the "lender" became less independent and bound to the new less friendly City's personality.

Counsel asked for when the "relationship soured"

Ant replies it was never adversarial, but more that they hardened up and became less flexible.

We are now looking at some documents. Admin stuff. Waiting for the point of it all.

Counsel is making the point of that in June 2016 they knew they needed at least 3 months delay to the project delivery timeline.

Ant points out it was much longer, because 3 months is if they could start drilling again in days. Turns out to be months later.

C: [So seeing how aggressive the timeline was to meet the deadline to launch. Why didn't you adjust the deadline?]
A: The city didn't want to hear about delays. [They wanted us to try to meet the deadline and they are willing to pay us to compensate]

The 1M damages that keeps coming up.

Ant notes that it is reparations if you said you're going to launch in 6 months and then you decide afterwards you not going to do/make it.

C: Is 1M really substantial on a multi billion dollar project?
A: [Great explanation] Not really

So this is weird...

OLRT-C submitted that they thought they were going to be on track and on time in Nov 2017.

RTG was obligated to relay that message, they couldn't sit on the message. Even though RTG knew full well the likelihood was near zero.

Who is sailing the ship 😂

And we learned yesterday from all that testimony that it was arguable OLRT-C and Thales weren't even remotely close to being even functional (or safe) during that time period.

Well... well... well...

Guess we found our first solid thread we chase, as this all unravels.

Now Counsel points the mentioned before OLRT notice - wrote with heavy legalese - and and avoids saying "We will be ready for May 2018".

You can read it for yourself.

Ant notes this prompted the city to hire a consultant to investigate 'what the hell is going on with OLRT' and what was reasonably achievable/"had a good probability of being achieved".

That's now three 'investigations' for those counting at home 😂

Now Counsel is reading The City's response which is long and roughly saying that this was a stupid message, you're being stupid, do your job without deviance.

You got 5 days to give us a report telling you how can do this. Else The City will levy all of its losses and penalties

RTGs response is defensive but submissive, trying to explain their position and the fact they understand that the last message they sent was not so great.

But they also explained that they're not magicians and they can't make miracles happen.

The start date has to be moved.

RTG asserts that the damage has already been done and that there's no way they can recover.

The City responds we see you're having trouble, we get it, so let's figure out a new date then - and you guys need a babysitter 😂

C: did these letters cause tension?
A: I think the tension happened when we failed to meet deadlines [and everything went to hell]

I'm enjoying the simple honesty of this former RTG director. He's keeping to the subject, not trying to save face or score points

Morning break. Till 11:00

Okay we're back and now.

The City of Ottawa asking some questions. Softballing that The City of Ottawa were not mean people and frequently made adjustments and concessions to help out the project.

They also gave RTG an extra $120 million extra to push the project along.

Just a bunch of back and forth clarifying what was said earlier.

One good point about RTG just passing along without commentary OLRT-C message was silly.

So now it's Infrastructure Ontario.

I kind of zoned out for the last of the City of Ottawa but nothing caught my attention.

Slow start for IO with some document issued.

Now talking about credentials of RTG and their commitments.

Nothing really relevant for a bit. The final question says that RTG acknowledges that they noticed Alstom and Thales we're very much focused on the critical path and not looking at meeting milestones.

Which lines up what we heard yesterday.

Ontario and STV, pass.

Jeans asks a good question out of the gate. Was a sinkhole covered under geotechnical risk?

I missed the exact wording, which was good, but end reply was something along the lines that it was up in the air at the time - but RTG believes it was not.

Jeans asks about the tunneling choices.
A: pleads a lack of knowledge.

J: Asks about the impact of the City adding more players on their end to interface with RTG
A: [It complemented the experience] 😜

So there's nothing too important again. Just talking about budgets financials and people doing their job

Now after 5 days back-to-back testimony my brain is definitely not storing anything. If I don't write it down right away it's gone. Memory buffer full 😂

On break till 2PM

And to clarify, when I say nothing too important. I mean, it's been covered already or I'm unable to see how it helps us get to figure out who to blame.

This commission will not assign guilt.

However, in the court of my personal opinion, I will 😂

We are back. Learning about roles and the Construction. This guy was SNC Lav's monthly project integrator (if you will till) 2018 then became project director in 2019

Talking about project integration and how the the failure of the tunnel really set them back, and without the tunnel being done, it held up everything progressing.

There was things that could be done, but it tossed a major wrench as everything really hinges on finished stations.

Still going on about how you launch a major project and the process of soft launching and bedding in, having a learning curve - so your project doesn't go nuclear on an overlooked element.

Getting a good understanding of delivering civil engineering project.

Our train tunnel air system is capable of proving fresh air while the train fireballs and smokes.

Alstom Computer talks to Thales Computer which then reports to belfast. Then Belfast acts.

The tunnel vent system also has a bunch of fan modes.

I'm looking at you @OC_Transpo probably casually running the fans hard to probably make sure the stink isn't apparent just before city council meetings 😂

Rupert here, points out that the complexity of our digitalized system is quite impressively high.

He mentions the UK government crashed and burned in a very similar fashion for the same reasons - issues with system integration.

He points out that a lot of the complexity is that you require two different skill sets between building, integrating, assurance.

It's his view that even though that they had system integration it was obviously not enough, or there wasn't the right people mix or focus.

Thales at one point calls out OLRT for poor system integration (what we saw yesterday - but that director points out that that was also likely Thales self covering) regardless as a project manager he notes that they brought on more talent to fix that hole.

SEMP is now being talked about, what was brought on for system insurance & system integration.

Requoting the bombshell from yesterday.

C: Did you think this is a fair assesment?

R: Yes, but it is more like school math.

It is one thing to have the correct answer, but you have to prove your work.

It wasn't the engineering inherently flawed, but the process wasn't there.

In more detail, it is that, when you do your engineering work, you need to be able to prove what you're doing and it needs to be repretable and documented

That part was lacking, which of course then causes you trouble when you try to prove the safety and readiness of the system

Counsel asks if he knew that this the first time Thales has installed this system on a low floor.

He didn't know.

He would have daily meetings Alstrom and Thales and a bunch of medium level staff to review progress.

He mentions the issues, but he thinks it improved in 2018

Rupert speaks about the integration and starts talking about the kind of levels of integration.

I think we're going to find that even though there was communication, it was a lot of nodding and some conflict, and as a result no one really took too hard look at each other.

Which might explain why everyone was auditing each other with third parties. They realize there was a hole in there trying to figure out who and what is persisting that hole.

Rupert talks more about the relationships amongst all the parties was not the greatest.

Talking about P3's and project planning.

The goal is to progressively to evolve the project as you go, not wait to the end to put it all together.

Rupert points out that OLRT fully understood the risk, plan and what they were contracted to do.

Rupert points out the executive leadership didn't give guidance. They were just supportive.

He agrees they were pressured to get things done, but not to be reckless.

He reiterates a lot of the problem is that there's not one person that can manage all the rules so there's so much interaction between the collective skill sets of everyone to try to get parts done on mega projects.

I accidentally closed Twitter so you lost a bit here.

Roughly Councel leaned in and tries to apply that because scheduling got moved around and there was financial issues and all that jazz that they might have cut corners.

Rupert replies Absolutely not. You still have to prove the safety arguments and that has to go through a bunch of people to sign off on it. You couldn't just push though.

Although that logic doesn't really hold up because we know there's issues. By this logic he's done nothing wrong and none of the people that work from have done anything wrong so no wrong could have of appeared.

But here we are two derailments later...

Rupert acknowledges Thales again likey yelling "things are late, we can't meet deadlines" isn't good evidence, because it's common practice this is used for leverage for either more money or better negotiation.

In the end they accelerated Thales - so the point is moot.

Plus also notes that with the others have said where they weren't doing so good about meeting their deadlines.

So again really they're complaining a lot about a personal issue.

Counsel points a document showing that OLRT had severe issues with their scheduling.

Rupert agrees.

Counsel asks were OLRT-C misleading the city?

Rupert pushes back. It wasn't a campaign of misleading people. We just didn't know the full scope, and new things kept cropping up.

Councel points out that of the critical documentation a small proportion was missing.

Notes RTM got upset because they were missing technical documents like how to run the train.

Rupert points out that (missed if RTG or RTM) made demands for many things, and barely looked (as per read records) at the documents they sent them.

Also the discrepancy in these cases are often because things that weren't a priority become a priority and thus are now missing

A good point from Rupert,

If RTM was so hard pressed or at the very least missing the train operations manual (if that is/was true) then,

Why did they sign that they were okay to take over maintenance operations?

Counsel notes that will be a question to ask later witnesses

Now back from break. With my favorite interrogator so far.

He's bringing up the fact that OLRT brought on independent determination dispute between the city of Ottawa and RTG

The report states that the project did not acknowledge that they were going to have any delays after the sinkhole.

6 months later they're still in denial.

Now much later. They found that the primary source of the delays during this time frame was that they couldn't get the stations integrated and they were having issues with the vehicles (*cough* Thales *cough*)

Wardel is correctly slowly pointing out that why were we giving out notices that everything would arrive on time based the above evidence.

The Cities' lawyer Peter Wardel is now telling us the virtues of fedco:

- The City is transparent
- That fedco operates largely in public.
- That fedco communicates it's dealings to the public.

Kill me 😂

cc: @smwgilbert @ShawnMenard1

Australia's awesome internet has kicked in and killed the witness after a few tries.

Classic Australia, worst international internet, don't even change 😂

Wardel before the crash, was pointing out that RTG was telling the city that they could deliver on time - as long as - they were ok with less vehicles, less stations, and less service standards 😂

Bid a dollar, and wing it 😜

I don't know where Peter's going with his questioning but I guess he's trying to say that Rupert was perhaps overly focused on safety and therefore were negligent on other things?

Rupert points out that eventually The City's safety authority signed off on everything.

Hummmm 🤔

Rupert reiterates that he was hired just to get the job done he wasn't in a position to decide the business model.

Now on to Alstom.

Alstom is pointing out this guy was ultimately responsible for everything - signals, track, ect.

Now talking about his level of day to day interactions.

Alstom is trying to establish now twice that "that the sub contractors and staff, filter up the information"

Likely to prove blindness.

Rupert is pushing back.

Rupert gives him a 2x4 as he didn't like his implications that he only acts when he gets a report on his desk.

Alstom backs off fast.

A: Did you know Thales needed 3 time extensions?
R: Maybe?

A: But never give Alstom not one extension.
R: Yes

A: You withheld from from us?
R: Yes, not really withheld, but just didn't feel you needed to know.

A: Would you agree it would be impossible for Alstom to deliver if the tracks were not built?
R: Yes

And here's a kicker.

R: But Alstom was always behind Thales development, so there was no risk of the other way around.

Because you can't integrate a product wasn't built yet...

Interesting that from his perspective he doesn't see any problem that Thales was torpedoing the project's deadlines

and the fact that they're falling behind as a result with the rail/signal development...

How the hell do they test their train or deploy their train without both

I think we're starting to see the heart of the matter right here.

Everyone's point in the fingers but I'm not thinking Alstom is really at fault here - unless they've been lying.

They had the train minus Thales + OLRT BS..

But then they blame Alstom for not delivering...

Rupert says this isn't quite true. Once the wiring was done in the train challenge was done - but, you still couldn't deliver the trains.

Thales wanted to wing it seems.
Alstom was all over the place in delivery of the final product.

Thus forcing rework on Thales....

Ooooh.

That is in contests with the previous testimony from Alstom.

It's getting adversarial now.

Alstom points out that Dr. Oakley again sat on correspondence.

A: How can you be mentioning you are [taking our needs into account] if she didn't report anything to higher ups?

🚑

A: You believe out the Alstom was late because of their own failings and this is your current feelings and that of other executives?
R: Yes

A: How you you hold this when it's clear info wasn't being communicated?
R: We had daily meetings.

A: [Arbitration proves this is all crap]. Do you agree that perhaps the disconnect is that you weren't getting enough information from your sublings?
R: [Nope]
R: [It's my belief that you guys delayed and you need to take responsibility for it]

And that's the end of it.

Nice and spicy. Good fight from both parties. Put some life into this event.

Infrastructure Ontario now. Trying to load up a document.

So Thales is now talking themselves up.

Apparently they are 'best in class' have delivered many times before (but never on a low floor LRT, only Metro non light rail) thus proven technology (that still needed to be integrated in a custom system)

I'm not sold yet.

OLRT soft balling at the end here. Good to cover these points. Talking about what it means that the "the project is done".

Points out that OLRT-C isn't looking to pass the buck, just move the deadlines of "when".

Passing to maintance was mainly for reaching value where possible

He left in 2019. Looking back he feels the project is in decent shape and we should be proud of it. It's very advanced, likely the most advanced in North America.

And that's it for today.

We will return at Monday 9AM.

@threadreaderapp unroll