[andyt]

We sure went thru a period of adjustment when highway maintenance was privatized. Lots of complaints for a few years until the contractor smartened up. Like to see the books if there really is a savings vs the govt doing it.

[BeaverFever]

Yes I did read it and no I'm not wrong. Did you read it? Do you think the section of the report that's titled "Ministry Oversight of Contractors Needs Improvement" might be a hint that the Auditor found that Ministry oversight of contractors needs improvement?

1) They removed MTO standards for things like equipment and inventory and let the private companies do what they want, since "private sector knows best"

2) They failed to monitor performance, over-relying on voluntary self-reporting and

3) When violations were found, they waived the penalty in too many cases.

Basically, the contractors were given too long a leash and they took advantage. Private contractors are not Dudley Do-Rights here to do right by the taxpayer. They're out get the most money for the lowest amount of expense. Period. When you outsource and privatize you need to watch these sharks like a hawk because they will rob you blind at every turn.

Here are some gems from the report:

$1:

Essentially, the new performance-based contracting approach gave contractors full autonomy in determining how they would meet the Ministry’s winter highway maintenance outcome targets(standards) to clear the highways of snow and ice within prescribed time frames. The amount of snow plows, salters and other equipment, as well as the amount of salt, sand and anti-icing liquid used was left solely up to the contractor....Monitoring the contracts was difficult, because ministry staff simulated storms after the fact to assess whether contractors were clearing highway snow and ice. However, in-storm monitoring of whether the contractors were actually meeting the standards was left almost entirely up to the contractors themselves.....


[b]Over-reliance on contractors’ self-reporting their performance
Whether contractors met certain outcome targets can be verified only through in-field observations made during and immediately after snowstorms. However, most audits are “desk audits,” conducted a few weeks after a storm, using GPS tracking information and information from contractors self-reporting their performance. There is a potential conflict of interest here: it is not in the contractors’ interest to report if they have not achieved outcome targets, and contractors are aware that the Co-ordinators’ in-field presence is limited. Ministry audits have found many instances of inaccurate information being reported by contractors or contractors not providing complete information..........


Waiving of fines inconsistent
Regional ministry staff have the discretion to waive the fines that Co-ordinators conclude should be levied against contractors for not meeting their outcome targets. This undermines the effectiveness of fines as a deterrent to prevent poor contractor performance. It has also resulted in inconsistencies in how the Ministry has responded to service failures throughout the province, which in turn affects service delivery, with some contractors being able to take advantage of ministry leniency in their region. Based on our work, we determined that of approximately $13.3 million in fines assessed for winter 2013/14, approximately $4.8 million, or 37%, was waived, and another $5.2 million, or 39%, was being reassessed at the time of our audit....


No Required Use of Best Practices in Equipment Calculations
How contractors were to achieve these new circuit time outcome targets, and how much equipment they were to use to do so, was up to them. There was no contractual requirement for contractors to use ministry best-practice maximums for circuit lengths and equipment speeds in calculating their minimum equipment needs, and they now could use a longer circuit time in this calculation....


Aging Equipment and Breakdowns
Since performance-based AMCs do not specify the minimum age and condition of the equipment used for highway maintenance, contractors using old and poorly functioning equipment is a concern. For example, we found that an aging equipment fleet and breakdowns significantly reduced service levels in two contract areas. In one, about half the equipment was approaching the end of, or already past, its useful life, and there was an average of eight breakdowns per day during the 2013/14 winter. During a snowstorm in that year, 18 units, representing 35% of the contractor’s total fleet, broke down, and the highways could not be satisfactorily plowed and salted as a result.


Changes Under Performance-based AMCs
Under the performance-based AMCs, contractors no longer had to reimburse the Ministry for unused salt costs. This created an incentive for contractors to use less salt, saving money for the contractors in the long run.

Also, how much anti-icing liquid to use was entirely up to the contractor, as long as outcome targets relating to ground frost and slippery road conditions were met. This also created an incentive for contractors to use less anti-icing liquid to save money. We found that most contractors acted on these incentives and used less treatment material.......


Refusal of Service by One Contractor
In one northern contract area, the contractor’s performance went beyond providing poor service to actually refusing to provide service. The Ministry issued a Notice of Default to this contractor in winter 2013/14. This contractor was also fined after a ministry audit, which was triggered by a 14-tractor-trailer pileup in the contract area that had led to an extensive highway closure.....

Here is the link (PDF): http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/ ... way_en.pdf

And on and on it goes.