Monday, October 29, 2007

This Week On The Dobranos.....

MegaProjectsGoneWild
NoOversightVille


...The Content Consultant (not?)Fades Away


Look.

There are all kinds of reasons why the Vancouver Convention Center expansion is currently either $248 million or $388 million dollars over budget (the actual number depends on when you decide to start your post-fast ferry reservation clock).

And, clearly, some of those reasons, like rising construction costs, appear to be legitimate.

Especially if you buy into the 'build the pyramid exactly as originally envisioned' vision-thing as you chant 'Olympics Comin' Fast!.....Olympics Comin' Fast!......Olympics Comin' Fast!...." over and over and over again while you simultaneously ignore the pleas of Schoolboards screaming for money so that they can waste it on crazy stuff like Special Needs Programs.

But I digress.....

****

One thing that has not been clear for sometime, however, is why we were told so little about the extent of the Convention Center Expansion overruns.

However, thanks to acting British Columbia auditor general Errol Price we now why:

Here it is, taken directly Mr. Price's report released last week (warning pdf):

An important mechanism, intended to keep a broader range of stakeholders updated, was the monthly progress reports provided to the (Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project) VCCEP board and stakeholders by VCCEP’s management team.

We found, however, that these reports, although quite detailed, lack a few important components.

The reports we examined showed only actual commitments to date and forecast costs relative to the approved budget, rather than showing the total estimated costs to complete the project.

The status reports also did not provide the readers with a clear understanding of the significant risks, the range of possible outcomes, and the strategies to deal with them.

As the inflationary pressures increased and as contingencies were used up without being replenished, the reports painted a rosier picture than was actually the case.


So, who was the boss of the VCCEP who wrote those rosy reports?

Well, if they were written before April of this year, they would have been penned by British Columbia's most well known content consultant, Mr. Ken Dobell.

How do we know that?

Why, because in the VCCEP's recent public 'progress report' (warning: another pdf) the new boss, Mr. David Podmore, was pleased to acknowledge the efforts of the old boss:

I am pleased to recognize the contributions of former Directors
Bruce Okabe, Deputy Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, and of
Andrew Wilkinson, and acknowledge the efforts of former VCCEP Chair, Ken Dobell, from the Project’s inception in 2003 through March 31, 2007.

{snip}

David Podmore, Chair
Board of Directors



Admirably, in the official response to AG Price's report, the new boss, Mr. Podmore, is now agreeing to abide by its recommendation (appended to the first pdf linked to above):

The current Board of VCCEP accepts the Auditor General’s recommendation respecting reporting of forecast costs to completion to all stakeholders. VCCEP has taken the steps necessary to ensure that its monthly progress reports to its stakeholders, as well as to its shareholder, include details regarding variances from plan that may arise (and mitigative actions being implemented).


Then, interestingly, the new boss, Mr. Podmore, also notes that the Auditor General did not distinguish between the 'oversight actions' of the previous Chair (ie. the old boss) and himself:

The Auditor General’s report does not, however, make a clear distinction between the actions and oversight of the previous Chair and Board (which commissioned the OAG’s review) and the new Chair and Board appointed on April 19, 2007.

Hmmmmm........

Is the new boss trying to tell us something about the actions of the old boss?


____
Thanks to Mr. Schreck (not Shrek) for pointing us towards Mr. Podmore's consultative comment in the response AG's report. Amazing what you can find when you get past 'Teh Google' and poke your nose a little deeper into the public record, eh?


.

No comments: