• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New accommodations facility at CFB Esquimalt and plan to build more homes on military bases

Whenever in the past I have been involved with rail or airport projects there was no local inspection authority. The same was true with the one build for DND. There is still usually a project management team and engineer approval. No ones building things without plans. The problem with working for the govt is opening it up to more bidders. Most smaller companies just dont get involved in the process. Less competition = more costs
 
. The problem with working for the govt is opening it up to more bidders. Most smaller companies just dont get involved in the process. Less competition = more costs
That pesky supply and demand curve…

Which is one reason I think base/installation local contracting would be the best bet.
 
Whenever in the past I have been involved with rail or airport projects there was no local inspection authority. The same was true with the one build for DND. There is still usually a project management team and engineer approval. No ones building things without plans. The problem with working for the govt is opening it up to more bidders. Most smaller companies just dont get involved in the process. Less competition = more costs
Aerodromes and hangars remain specifically under the umbrella of Nav Canada. Local municipalities have zero jurisdiction. I'm making an assumption that rail might fall under the same.
 
Whenever in the past I have been involved with rail or airport projects there was no local inspection authority. The same was true with the one build for DND. There is still usually a project management team and engineer approval. No ones building things without plans. The problem with working for the govt is opening it up to more bidders. Most smaller companies just dont get involved in the process. Less competition = more costs

And it's getting worse - for both small businesses and government ;)

Do away with the maze of government procurement​

New reforms are welcome but the pivot needs to further simplify procurement processes so that smaller companies can compete for contracts.

The embarrassing spectacle of the ArriveCAN hearings. The discovery of a fraudulent billing scheme totalling $5 million. Billions in job subsidies that created no jobs.

After recent bad news about federal government procurement policies, it’s not difficult to see why Public Service and Procurement Canada (PSPC) and the Treasury Board have announced a sharp pivot.

A series of reforms – including the creation of a new office of supplier integrity and compliance as well as better fraud prevention and detection mechanisms – are being rolled out with an unfamiliar sense of urgency.

While these are welcome changes, the fact that they have come about only after repeated failures is a clear indication that the government’s procurement problems go much deeper than those attention-grabbing headlines.

Anyone who has tried to compete for a federal government contract knows that its procurement strategy has for decades relied on a complex web of ”preferred vendor contracts,” which often limit access to insiders who know how to navigate the murky waters of RFPs and grant applications.

The current government – elected in 2015 on a platform that included massive spending alongside an overhaul of how that spending would occur – has promised repeatedly to change the way procurement functions. However, those commitments have largely gone unfulfilled.

There are allegations that some programs aimed at levelling the procurement playing field for underrepresented communities, especially for Indigenous communities, have instead been misused by the same established contractors they were meant to overturn.

Significant barriers remain

PSPC’s work impacts every other government department and sets a tone for efficiency. If a culture of inefficiency becomes pervasive in such an essential department, that has ramifications for the entire public service as well as the Canadian economy.

Take, for example, the government’s policies and procedures on IT and technology procurement.

Recent reports indicate that significant institutional barriers are keeping smaller, more innovative technology companies in the health tech and cybersecurity sector locked out of the billions available in federal procurement contracts.

In good economic times, these inefficiencies and barriers are cumbersome and unfortunate. But with a crawling economy and productivity rates dropping to what the Bank of Canada called “emergency levels,” they are starving Canadian businesses seeking vital capital lifelines and eroding the hope for broad-based growth.

While not wholly the fault of PSPC or even necessarily the current government, this has become an endemic problem.

As the Council of Canadian Innovators stated recently, it is the twin forces of lagging innovation funding and challenging economic times that are feeding off each other to create a hostile environment for innovators.

However, instead of responding to the crisis of productivity and innovation, the recent federal budget doubled down on some of the government’s more troubling policies and put up new barriers for entrepreneurs and innovators.

Canada lags behind every other OECD and G7 country in research and development (R&D) investments, which are widely considered to be an effective tool to boost competition and innovation. However, the expanded capital gains tax will result in Canada further losing its competitive edge and hampering productivity.

 
Except of DND ones.
I suspect DND will follow most of those as guidelines except when necessary for security etc issues.


I suspect you are correct - Paging @Humphrey Bogart
Railroads are all the jurisdiction of Transport Canada and the Federal Minister of Transportation.

Transport Canada sets the standards & regulations, the Railways can build anything on their land they want, as long as it complies with those standards. If it deviates from existing standards in any way, it requires Ministerial Approval.

This is all defined in the Transportation Act & Railway Safety Act.
 
Railroads are all the jurisdiction of Transport Canada and the Federal Minister of Transportation.

Transport Canada sets the standards & regulations, the Railways can build anything on their land they want, as long as it complies with those standards. If it deviates from existing standards in any way, it requires Ministerial Approval.

This is all defined in the Transportation Act & Railway Safety Act.
There is also a board that rules on any conflict between different types of transportation. Somewhat obscure and kind of in the background. We ran into it when dealing with a problematic swing bridge on the Fraser River. The actual name escapes me and with 1 coffee in me, my google fu is weak.
 
That pesky supply and demand curve…

Which is one reason I think base/installation local contracting would be the best bet.
Many small local contractors will not bid for large Government jobs.
Many will sub contract through a larger contractor due to the headaches of working with the Government.
Dnd project managers/ engineers are sometimes behind the times on building standards along with supply and demand. Often they will have a idea, pass it without knowing if it will actually work or all the requirements to make it work.
For example a simple couple thousand dollar job becomes a $20-30,000 job due to the DND PM not understanding you need access to water and drainage to Install a sink.
They assure the contractor it's all good to go. They didn't tell you the access was through a reinforced concrete wall that cant be cored during regular working hours and your guys need secret security clearance to access the other side of the wall. You jump through all their hoops to find out the drainage isnt sewer it's storm. The water source is not potable. The sink they wanted is off amazon not a commercial sink.

That is why if they get a large contractor to oversea the entire project (not SnC). They will be better off
 
There is also a board that rules on any conflict between different types of transportation. Somewhat obscure and kind of in the background. We ran into it when dealing with a problematic swing bridge on the Fraser River. The actual name escapes me and with 1 coffee in me, my google fu is weak.
Probably the Canadian Transportation Agency.

 
While I like your idea, I see some pitfalls:

1. What is the criteria for being allowed to rent one? ie. So many days attendance a month? Valid Force test? Green on ARV? etc...? You can't just allow reservists to rent them as you'll get people joining to get a place and never showing up (or just showing up enough to not go NES), but bringing no added value to the force.
2. Who is the landlord? CFHS can't manage/repair/upgrade the homes they have now. Giving them even more homes (away from Bases as you suggest) will only increase the speed at which they turn into crap if no one is looking after them.
3. You mention cheap SQs. That's partly why we're in the mess we are with housing. The local market will cry foul, the politicians will pander to them to get votes, and the price will jump to "fair market value", which in places like BC and Ontario, will mean rent is still unaffordable.
4. Who polices these SQs? Junior soldiers being how they are, I suspect there will be times when policing is required. If they are considered SQs, I imagine (happy to be educated on this point) that the MPs will have to/want to be the ones investigating the low end offences (trashing the place, quarrels, etc...)
5. Along with point 1 above, who is pri for getting these? There will likely never be enough to satisfy demand, so is it based on need (and how do you calculate that), Rank, time in (or lack of such), etc... And is it once your in, your in for life (or until you release at least)?

Anyhow you get my point. Until we can sort out/provide enough housing on major bases, I can't see this seeing the light of day. I wish I were wrong as it could help.

There are always going to be challenges and details to work out. What's frustrating here is that we have zero ability to think outside the box or silo. What DND has is a unique opportunity to provide housing (not subject to all kinds of local obstructionism) while also providing a service that can serve as a major recruiting incentive and an effort that reinforces the military community.
 
Not so long ago, they issued a contract to refurbish the Seaforth Armoury. Apparently they neglected to included any telecommunications installation into that contract. The Seaforth's were delayed moving back into, till a contract could be issued and completed to install working telecommunications.
 
Not so long ago, they issued a contract to refurbish the Seaforth Armoury. Apparently they neglected to included any telecommunications installation into that contract. The Seaforth's were delayed moving back into, till a contract could be issued and completed to install working telecommunications.

This is from 2017, but there are still 'issues' as I understand it ;)

 
Many small local contractors will not bid for large Government jobs.
So a lot of bases here run small contracts out specifically for the smaller contractors. It ends up being a win win, as the jobs get done sooner, and cheaper (and 9/10 times with better quality).
Many will sub contract through a larger contractor due to the headaches of working with the Government.
Dnd project managers/ engineers are sometimes behind the times on building standards along with supply and demand. Often they will have a idea, pass it without knowing if it will actually work or all the requirements to make it work.
For example a simple couple thousand dollar job becomes a $20-30,000 job due to the DND PM not understanding you need access to water and drainage to Install a sink.
They assure the contractor it's all good to go. They didn't tell you the access was through a reinforced concrete wall that cant be cored during regular working hours and your guys need secret security clearance to access the other side of the wall. You jump through all their hoops to find out the drainage isnt sewer it's storm. The water source is not potable. The sink they wanted is off amazon not a commercial sink.
You're conflating issues -- building housing isn't rocket science - you aren't dealing with SCIF's and their requirements.
When you start dealing with other issues like secure facilities - it often is the fact that several different Engineers and PM's don't actively talk to each other.

That is why if they get a large contractor to oversea the entire project (not SnC). They will be better off
Utterly disagree
 
Many small local contractors will not bid for large Government jobs.
Many will sub contract through a larger contractor due to the headaches of working with the Government.
Dnd project managers/ engineers are sometimes behind the times on building standards along with supply and demand. Often they will have a idea, pass it without knowing if it will actually work or all the requirements to make it work.
For example a simple couple thousand dollar job becomes a $20-30,000 job due to the DND PM not understanding you need access to water and drainage to Install a sink.
They assure the contractor it's all good to go. They didn't tell you the access was through a reinforced concrete wall that cant be cored during regular working hours and your guys need secret security clearance to access the other side of the wall. You jump through all their hoops to find out the drainage isnt sewer it's storm. The water source is not potable. The sink they wanted is off amazon not a commercial sink.

That is why if they get a large contractor to oversea the entire project (not SnC). They will be better off
Not so long ago, they issued a contract to refurbish the Seaforth Armoury. Apparently they neglected to included any telecommunications installation into that contract. The Seaforth's were delayed moving back into, till a contract could be issued and completed to install working telecommunications.

Many years ago I was involved in the planning and construction/renovation of a few buildings (primarily medical). Before it became a movie title and scenario, being in the "matrix" had a special meaning for those in Ottawa involved in project management. While hospitals may be very specialized buildings, the convoluted processes to get from concept to construction to occupancy are probably not much different whether the building's intended purpose was housing vehicles, sleeping soldiers or surgical patients.

Though it may be no different in the private civilian sector, the personnel churn in the CF almost guarantees that continuity in project staff never exists. And it is not just the "project staff" that changes over time. The end-user (client, if we were pretending to be a private sector project) will also likely change; functions within the building envelope will also evolve - things (e.g., units) will be added or removed; number of pers to occupy or work in the bldg will increase or decrease; and technology will improve requiring changes to the plan. And all that has to be accommodated within the confines of an already approved budget. Well, not always, sometimes going back to ask for more money is necessary, or, in the case of one of the projects I was involved in, to have it set to to a maximum figure in deutsche marks because of the volatility in exchange rates (we were building a hospital in Lahr). One of the obvious changes in requirements for that particular project was the closure of CFE.

How do things get "missed" in a construction project? In most cases they weren't missed, usually, they were not required when the original functional program and statement of requirements was developed.
 
Speaking of which, the landlords strike back... finally


Sounds to me like they should have been denied.

Making a poor investment (i.e. paying too much for a rental property and mortgage) doesn’t mean you should be allowed to price gouge your way out of it.

When they bought the property they should have known what the rent was. They should have done a cost/profit risk analysis to see if it was worth it. If they can’t afford it they can sell to someone else who can, even if it means they take a loss, thats how it goes. Nothing says in business you should always be making a profit.

Poor arbitration decision, that could have negative impacts on all sorts of renters.
 
Back
Top