Lansdowne 2.0 development faces key finance and corporate services committee vote

Article content

Councillors on the city’s powerful finance and corporate services committee must make a key decision Tuesday that will influence the future of the $419-million Lansdowne 2.0 development.

The decision is about the form of the design and construction contract for Lansdowne 2.0, which includes building a new 5,500-seat events centre and north-side grandstand for the football stadium, new underground parking and two residential towers of 40 and 25 storeys atop a “retail podium.” Even if all goes according to plan, it will be a decade or more before all the work is complete on the public-private partnership between the city and Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group.

Article content

Article content

It’s a complicated matter — the “executive summary” alone of the staff report to the committee runs 18 pages. City staff are recommending the committee approve what’s known as a “design bid build” model, which is one of eight types of delivery models reviewed and assessed by KPMG, the city’s independent consultant.

The DBB model is a traditional method of issuing contracts, as described by KPMG “in which the owner awards two distinct and sequential contracts for the design and construction works. The design is reviewed and approved by the owner. Once the design is complete, the owner procures the construction works based on that design.” Both contracts are fixed price.

But the DBB model was not the method KPMG rated as the best choice for Lansdowne 2.0. That was something known as “progressive design build” (PDB) described by KPMG as “an approach to contracting that provides the owner with a contractor-designer early in the Project’s development phase. The owner and PDB Contractor then develop the project using a collaborative approach. Once completed the collaborative project development phase ends with the signature of a fixed price DB contract.”

Article content

Inside baseball? Yes. But KPMG rated PDB highest because of its reduced risk, its flexibility to modify the design and because it would be likely to attract the most interest from bidders.

The DBB model ranked fourth in the assessment, seven points behind, although KPMG conceded there was little difference between the top four contenders. The KPMG report said DBB scored well for “market interest, project implementation capacity and collaboration with stakeholders,” particularly if OSEG stuck with its current architect, Brisbin Brook Beynon.

The city has its own reasons for favouring the DBB model. In a report to the committee, city staff said the DBB model is the one the city has had the most experience with and was also the delivery model recommended for future infrastructure project by the provincial inquiry into the LRT construction. It also gives the best chance of having the project go through under the existing Ontario Building Code. The province is planning a massive update to the code, which could throw another hurdle into the project timeline.

The DBB also gives councillors a second chance at “go/no go” decision before the final contract is awarded, likely in late 2025, staff said.

Article content

Also included in Tuesday’s recommendations to the committee is a request for $4 million to prepare tender-ready designs for the event centre and the north-side stands. It also calls for a $20 million line of credit to be extended to the partnership “in order to fund cashflow requirements through to the end of the Lansdowne 2.0 construction period.”

The zoning bylaw amendments and the changes to the city’s official plan required for Lansdowne 2.0 are being appealed by the Glebe Community Association. Those appeals have yet to be heard by the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Article content