Pickering truss fuss lingers after damning report
Metrolinx and contractor oppose auditor general’s pedestrian-bridge claims
In one corner are Metrolinx and Aplus General Contractors Corp. Their position: a controversial truss at a pedestrian bridge was installed correctly.
In the other corner: Ontario’s auditor general, standing by a recent report that said the truss was upside down and had to be fixed at taxpayers’ expense.
The truss was one of the highlights of auditor general Bonnie Lysyk’s report, which looked critically at how Metrolinx handled the building of the Pickering pedestrian bridge.
“I have to say that I stand by the report,” Lysyk told the Star this week. “We do our due diligence, we do our work. We get (Metrolinx) to verify facts for us, we get them to sign off. We have a letter from them that stands behind the report.”
In a statement released Wednesday, Aplus said it “has been inaccurately disparaged” by the report.
The pedestrian bridge was supposed to be a modern, beautiful landmark, but more than five years after the project was set to be completed, it’s still unfinished, although it’s been functional since 2012.
Aplus, which was awarded two consecutive contracts to build the bridge, came under fire this month when Lysyk released her report, which detailed several errors made by Aplus.
The report said Aplus “had no experience in installing the bridge trusses . . . something that a contractor constructing a bridge would be expected to know how to do. In fact, it installed one truss upside down.”
But Aplus disputed this, saying “there is absolutely no truth in that statement whatsoever.”
It denied that Metrolinx stepped in to manage the truss installation and alleged the “architectural metal shroud that was to envelope the bridge had not been designed at the outset so as to be constructible.”
It also alleged “there were no issues with the performance of Aplus in constructing and cladding the bridge,” but admitted one of its subcontractors “damaged some of the glass when welding a skeletal frame to the bridge.”
Lysyk stood by the report, saying of her sources, “we don’t always just talk to vice-presidents and presidents. We talk to people working in the field.
“We get information from all different places and all different types and I can’t comment on the specifics. But I can definitely say to you that this section of the report was vetted for factual accuracy by Metrolinx twice.”
Metrolinx spokesperson Anne Marie Aikins said it was an oversight that no one from the organization noticed the report said a truss was installed incorrectly.
“We had a short amount of time to read the report and that may have gotten overlooked, and for that we apologize. The truss wasn’t installed upside down and that’s unfortunate that that wasn’t corrected.”
What was installed incorrectly, said Aikins, was a beam during the second phase.
Ultimately, Metrolinx terminated its contract for the second phase of construction with Aplus, but still paid it almost the full value of the contract, about $8 million.
“The key message here,” said Lysyk, “is that we’re illustrating that there was continual lack of oversight at Metrolinx, and they needed to improve their oversight, so that when they had a contractor that didn’t perform well initially, that they would document that and use that documentation going forward in their selection or reselection process.”