We may never know whether poor design or poor construction techniques caused the delays in building Burlington’s pier. Even professional engineers disagree on that point. But maligning the contractor’s reputation and spreading false rumours does nothing to advance dialogue and understanding of the situation, nor find a productive solution. Below, some of the rumours I’ve heard (including from city council members and officials!), and the reality.
Rumour:
The contractor is going bankrupt.
Reality:
The contractor (Harm Schilthuis & Sons) is solvent and has recently won tenders for several multi-million dollar projects. The fact that Schilthuis is solvent has complicated the city’s attempt to call Schilthuis’ performance bond pay to complete the project. Bonds typically come into play when there is insolvency – not the case here.
Rumour:
The contractor only got the job because they were the lowest bidder.
Reality:
Schilthuis was the lowest of three bids on the project, which ranged from $6.8 million to $8.4 million. (See the staff report comparing bids here. ) If city council’s only criteria for awarding tenders is “lowest bidder” that is a problem in itself. Additional reasons council may have chosen Schilthuis: Schilthuis had successfully built other projects in Burlington, including the Aldershot Pool and Aldershot Arena. As a result, Schilthuis was one of the few pre-qualified bidders on the pier project. A staff report in 2006 recommending that Schilthuis be awarded the pier contract stated, “Staff are very pleased with the quality of their work and are confident in their ability to successfully complete the pier project.” Read that report here.
Rumour:
The contractor is a small company that didn’t know the complexity of the job they were bidding on.
Reality:
Schilthuis has been in business for 58 years, successfully constructing millions of dollars worth of projects, including in Burlington. Currently, Schilthuis is working on Pier 4 in Hamilton, and constructing two arenas in Haldimand County, worth close to $30 million. To learn more about the pier contractor, and the work they have done, visit their website at: www.schilthuis.com.
Rumour:
The contractor doesn’t know how to build in the water.
Reality:
Schilthuis is a general contractor and subcontracts specialized aspects of any job they do. A staff report in 2006 recommending that Schilthuis be awarded the pier contract stated, “Staff have reviewed and are satisfied with the qualifications and experience of the marine contractors.” Read that report here:
Rumour:
The contractor should have noticed the design problems before they took the job.
Reality:
Engineers are responsible for design. Contractors are responsible for construction. It is normal for design modifications to be made in the field in the course of construction, and these usually occur without incident.
Rumour:
The contractor just wants more money because (fill in the blank): they’re bankrupt; they underbid; they underestimated the job, they’re incompetent, etc.
Reality:
The additional fees being requested by the contractor to finish the pier cover the cost to redesign and fix the design flaws. Even if the design/build proposal is accepted, the company says it stands to lose a substantial amount of money finishing the pier. Schilthuis is prepared to absorb those costs to see the project completed.
Rumour:
The problem with the pier is due to “an over pour of concrete by the contractor”.
Reality:
The deck is made of steel and concrete which expand and contract at different rates, so engineers account for some “deflection” in the design. But after the pour, the deflection was 4 inches too low, and led to substantial twisting of the underlying steel. The contractor, Harm Schilthuis and Sons Limited, immediately raised concerns about the design. It was weeks after that the crane accident occurred, and arguments began over the structural steel supports, diverting public attention away from design questions.
Engineers from AECOM, the city, and Schilthuis were on-site the day of the pour. AECOM inspected the false and form work and gave the go ahead to proceed with the concrete pour. If the was faulty, why didn’t anyone catch it then?
2 Comments
It’s about time this company received some balanced coverage. Bravo, Marianne! Somehow, Council needs to bit the bullet and fix this ‘mistake-by-the-lake.’
Unfortunately City Officials do not seem to think as an independant business would in relationship to litigation and the high cost and delays that are involved. If it were their own business and not a situation that is supported by tax payer dollars this dispute wold have moved forward long before now. However the City feel they have the upper hand yet fail to look at the reality of the situation and what the consequencies are in the eyes of the Burlington tax payers who elected them.
If this contractor has credible construction experience and can prove they have constructed piers and other forms of waterfront construction to design specifications, then the City will have an uphill battle to prove they are at fault.
AR
2 Trackbacks
[...] The pier contractor isn’t bankrupt, and other rumours dispelled [...]
[...] to advance dialogue and understanding of the situation, nor find a productive solution. Click here for a primer dispelling some of the rumours I’ve heard (including from city officials!), [...]